RIHE International Seminar Reports
No.12, September 2008

Report of the International Conference on
the Changing Academic Profession Project, 2008

THE CHANGING ACADEMIC PROFESSION IN
INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE AND
QUANTITATIVE PERSPECTIVES

Research Institute for Higher Education
HIROSHIMA UNIVERSITYThe Changing Academic Profession in International
Comparative and Quantitative Perspectives
Edited and Published by
Research Institute for Higher Education
Hiroshima University
2-2, Kagamiyama 1-chome
Higashi-Hiroshima, 739-8512 Japan
TEL: +81-82-424-6240, FAX: +81-82-422-7104
http://en.rihe.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/
Printed by:
Takatoo Print Media Co.Ltd.
3-2-30, Senda-machi, Naka-ku, Hiroshima City
730-0052, Japan
TEL: +81-82-244-1110, FAX: +81-82-244-1199
September 2008
ISBN978-4-902808-45-2

i

FOREWORD

The changing academic profession is one of the very important typicalphenomena that show us the continuous and fundamental change of the higher
education systems around the world. Today many countries have experienced
the expansion of higher education that is sometimes called massification. It was
only several decades ago when we used to say that only the United States had
reached the stage of “universal” higher education and a very limited number ofcountries, including Japan, were reaching the stage of “mass” higher education;
while the majority of the rest still remained as “elite” higher education systems
where only privileged people in small numbers could access the higher education
services.
Today around the world, there are so many countries that confront
massification of higher education.
Massification does not mean only
quantitative expansion of enrolment and growth of faculties and other staff. It
causes qualitative changes within the higher education system as well as in therelationship with state and society. People say that universities are no more theivory towers, as in the medieval era and pre-industrial economy, but social
entities that should be supported by the state and society.
Indeed, universities, by their research, teaching and other activities, areexpected to contribute to society in terms of economic development and social
welfare far more than previously. They are not only schools for the youth but
also for the adult students who have various different reasons for study. The
continuous change of students as well as social and economic changes has
required the higher education system to be more responsive to the needs ofstudents and society. Thus governance and finance, as well as teaching andresearch, have changed rapidly in recent decades. The academic profession is
no exception in terms of the changes.
This year the Research Institute for Higher Education in Hiroshima
University hosted an international conference in close collaboration with
Hijiyama University. The title of the conference was “The Changing Academic
Profession in International Comparative and Quantitative Perspectives”. We
invited approximately 20 foreign scholars from various regions to attend theconference, which in itself shows the wide international character of this research
activity.
The main purpose of the 2008 conference was to enable the participants togive preliminary country/regional reports based on their national/regional

ii
surveys. These surveys had been conducted on the basis of a new version of the
1992-1993 questionnaire organized by the Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching.
In the two-day conference, international
comparative and quantitative research was reported with a focus on six aspects
concerning the academic profession. These constitute the core part of thequestionnaire and include: careers and the professional situation, the generalwork situation and activities, teaching, research, management, and personal
background. In addition to analysis and discussion of the similarities anddifferences existing among individual countries and regions, a detailed
comparative study of the changes in the academic profession in Japan since thelast international survey in 1992-1993 was presented.
This publication reports the proceedings of the conference. I hope that all
readers will be helped to understand the changing academic profession andidentify the core of the problems that we should respond to. In doing so, I
would express my sincere respect to the leadership of Professor Akira Arimoto,who is a co-organizer and also the chair of Japanese research team; and also
express my best thanks to Professor Keith J. Morgan, visiting scholar at the
RIHE, who led the work of editing this publication.

July 2008
Shinichi Yamamoto
Director and Professor,
Research Institute for Higher Education,
Hiroshima University

CONTENTS
Foreword
Shinichi Yamamoto ······················································· i

Keynote Speeches
Keynote Speech 1
International Implications of the Changing Academic Profession in Japan
Akira Arimoto ·····························································1
Keynote Speech 2
The Context for the Changing Academic Profession: a survey of international
indicators
William K. Cummings ················································· 33

Country Reports
North America
The Changing Academic Profession in Canada: exploring themes of relevance,internationalization, and management
Amy Scott Metcalfe ···················································· 57
The Changing Academic Profession in the United States: 2007
Martin Finkelstein and William Cummings ·························· 75
European Countries
The Academic Profession in England: still stratified after all these years?
William Locke ·························································· 89
Changes in the Finnish Academic Profession Reflect Reforms in Higher Education
Timo Aarrevaara and Seppo Hölttä ·································· 117
Academic Staff in Germany: per aspera ad astra?
Ulrich Teichler ························································· 131
The Changing Academic Profession in Italy: accounts from the past, first insightsfrom the present
Michele Rostan ························································ 153

Asia-Pacific Region
The Australian Academic Profession: a first overview
Hamish Coates, Leo Goedegebuure, Jeannet Van Der Lee andLynn Meek ····························································· 179
Governance and Decision-Making Related to Academic Activities: the case ofhigher educational institutions in Malaysia
Muhamad Jantan and Morshidi Sirat ································ 203
A Preliminary Review of the Hong Kong CAP Data
Gerard A. Postiglione and Hei Hang Hayes Tang··················· 227
Progress of the Academic Profession in Mainland China
Hong Shen ······························································ 251
Analyses of the Educational Backgrounds and Career Paths of Faculty inHigher Education Institutions in Beijing Municipality, China
Yan Fengqiao and Chen Yuan ········································ 265
The Changing Academic Profession in an Era of University Reform in Japan
Tsukasa Daizen and Atsunori Yamanoi ······························ 293
Latin America
Brazilian Academic Profession: some recent trends
Elizabeth Balbachevsky, Simon Schwartzman,Nathalia Novaes Alves, Dante Filipe Felgueiras dos Santos
and Tiago Silva Birkholz Duarte ····································· 327
Mexican Academics at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century: who are they andhow do they perceive their work, institutions and public policies (a preliminary
analysis)
Jesús Francisco Galaz-Fontes, Laura Elena Padilla-González,Manuel Gil-Antón, Juan José Sevilla-García, José Luis Arcos-Vega,
Jorge Martínez-Stack, Sergio Martínez-Romo, Gabriel Arturo
Sánchez-de-Aparicio-y-Benítez, Leonardo Jiménez-Loza andMaría Elena Barrera-Bustillos ·········································· 345

The Academic Profession in Argentina: characteristics and trends in the context ofa mass higher education system
Monica Marquina and Norberto Fernandez Lamarra ··············· 363

AfricaThe Academic Profession in South Africa in Times of Change: portrait fromthe preliminary results of the Changing Academic Profession (CAP) Research
Project
Charste C. Wolhuter, Philip Higgs, Leonie G. Higgs andIsaac M. Ntshoe·························································· 389

Conclusion
Preliminary Findings and Discussions about the Characteristics of the
Changing Academic Profession in Fifteen Countries and Regions:an international, comparative and quantitative perspective
Futao Huang ····························································· 401
Appendices1. CAP Questionnaire ································································ 405
2. Conference Program ······························································· 421
3. List of Participants ································································· 427

Page

Acknowledgement

We would like to acknowledge the invaluable contribution of Professor
Keith J. Morgan, visiting professor at RIHE, Hiroshima University, who edited
all the manuscripts in this report.

Shinichi Yamamoto
Director & Professor,
Research Institute for Higher Education,
Hiroshima University
Akira Arimoto
Director & Professor,
Research Institute for Higher Education,
Hijiyama University

Keynote Speeches1International Implications of the Changing Academic
Profession in Japan

Akira Arimoto∗

This keynote speech has two main purposes. First, it is intended to shedlight on the current situation of a changing academic profession (CAP) in Japan.
Second, it intends to consider the implications of an international survey related
to the CAP project. The former involves introducing the research aims andtraits of a Japanese research project entitled “An International Comparative
Study of Construction of the 21st century type of Academic Profession”. This
project, “a base research project” sponsored by JSSP, will be under progress from2006 to 2010. For convenience I shall call it the “Japan project” here in thispaper. In fact, this international conference is conducted as a part of the Japan
project and in this context a discussion of the project’s outline actually explains
also the relationship between it and the CAP project.
In addition to providing this explanation, it is necessary for me to introduce
the recent environmental changes surrounding the academic profession (AP) in
Japan and their effects on the changing academic profession so as to identify theJapanese situation in detail. About fifteen years have passed since the Carnegie
International Survey of the academic profession was undertaken in 1992-93.
During these years, Japanese academia has been subject to influences both fromsocial changes outside academia and from knowledge changes inside academia tothe extent that it has experienced a third large academic reform since theinstitutionalization of a modern higher education following the first in the
pre-war period and the second in the immediate post-war period. The academic
profession was inevitably expected to change and actually it has changed to a∗

Director and Professor, Research Institute for Higher Education, Hijiyama University, Japan,
e-mail: arimoto@hijiyama-u.ac.jp

2
considerable degree.
In this context, this paper consists of the following four parts: 1. the purposeof the study: a perspective of the Japanese project; 2. the Japanese academic
profession: its own characteristics; 3. the Japanese type CAP and its international
implications; 4. the purposes of the CAP project.

1. The purpose of the study: a perspective of the Japan Project(1) Japan Project
The Japan project entitled “An International Comparative Study ofConstruction of the 21st century type of Academic Profession” is mainly aimed toclarify the construction and the functions of the 21st century type AP in Japan andother countries.
(2) What is the AP?
The Daigaku Kyojushoku, or academic profession, consisted of kyoju(professor), junkyoju (associate professor), koshi (lecturer), jokyo (assistantprofessor). From 2004 new positions with new names replaced the old ones asfollows: kyoju, jokyouju, koshi, joshu. The AP embraces all these positions(Central Council for Education, 2004).
(3) Function of knowledge: knowledge, society, university, and academic
profession
The university is a knowledge society based on knowledge and so the AP
cannot be discussed at all without recognizing its relationship to knowledge.
Therefore, it is inevitable that knowledge fulfills an important role with certain
proper functions of academia (Biglan, 1973; Bleiklie & Henkel, 2005; Becher,
1981, 1987, 1989). Related to the relationship between a knowledge function
and academia, there are four basic functions consisting of discovery,
dissemination, application, and control of knowledge. In terms of the fourfunctions of academic work, they are research, teaching, service, andmanagement and administration, respectively (Becher & Trowler, 2001, Becher
and Parry, 2007; Clark, 1983; Arimoto, 2004).
In the 21st century, not only the university but also total society is moving
toward a knowledge society where the concept of Mode 1 and Mode 2
knowledge is working as pointed out by M. Gibbons et al. (1974).

3

21st Century HE system

Modern HE system
Nation state
Industrial society

Before control

globalization
Knowledge society
Market mechanism

After control

society

governmentsociety

government
research

researchtceKnowledge-based society 1

rviuniversity

gover
nance

knowledgeseteaching service

managementngStrategic
reconstruction

i
ch
ea

knowledge

university

Knowledge-based society 2

Figure 1. Knowledge, society, and university

Figure 1 represents the relationship between knowledge, society and theuniversity. Modern higher education systems are now changing and adapting toa 21st century mode in response to a series of pressures partly deriving from theexternal environment, including social changes, and partly from the internal
environment including scientific development.
There are global trends changing higher education, such as massification,
bureaucratization, marketization, diversification and globalization.
Everyhigher education system is attempting to construct a new type of systemappropriate to the emerging social changes. Currently, the existing new type ofinternational social changes derives from similar phenomena: knowledge-basedsociety, globalization, and market mechanisms. At a macro-level, it isinevitable that the higher education systems established in response to industrial
society should shift to systems responding to knowledge-based society.
This constitutes a transition from knowledge-based society 1 (KBS1), where
university and society were clearly separated from each other, to KBS2, where
university and society have become borderless on the basis of a shift from mode
1 to mode 2 (Arimoto, 2007a). In KBS1, knowledge is located inside theuniversity and therefore research, teaching, service, and management andadministration are constrained inside the university. Fundamentally, knowledge
is solely accessible to the university and remains closed to the external society.

4
On the other hand, in KBS2, knowledge is related to research, teaching, andservice and is connected to both university and society. Knowledge has become
open to society as well as the university.
Naturally, the role of the university has to change from a community ofknowledge in which CUDOS is working, as described by Robert Merton, to an
enterprise of knowledge in which the knowledge economy prevails due tomarketization and leads to an academic capitalism (Merton, 1973; Slaughter &Leslie, 1997). Today, conflict between CUDOS and the knowledge economy is
apt to deepen (Sorlin & Vessuri, 2007).
The linkage of the knowledge economy to globalization has extended its
impact throughout the world, so that the possibility of a unified model related to
culture and values has increased. The university may contribute to extend sucha unified model by research and teaching. On the other hand, the university
may be better able to resist these trends and pressures by strengthening its
academic freedom and autonomy. In this picture, conflicts will exist in the
movements toward internationalization and globalization (Teichler, 2003).
Indeed there are sufficient reasons to support internationalization rather thanglobalization in order to preserve cultural diversity (Arimoto, 2005a).
(4) Reconstruction of the AP in response to environmental changesi) The AP around the world confronts the problem of reconstructing
missions, roles and functions due to the effects of environmental changes (seeFigure 2).
government

c
d
a

g

b

h

societyknowledge

university

Academic professionfeFigure 2. Environmental Change of the Academic Profession

5
Academic reforms are enforced by the interactions among society(international society, national society, regional society, etc.), government(national government, local government, etc.), knowledge (advanced knowledge,
academic disciplines, etc.) and university (sector, type, etc.); particularly
significant are the interactions between university and society; between
government and university; and between knowledge and university. As a result,the vision, function and structure of the AP belonging to the university have to bereconsidered.
ii) It is said that building a new professional vision is an undertaking in both
external control and in self-control by the interaction of the various effects andpressures due to the environmental changes on the AP and the AP itself.
In other words, factors such as the social changes (knowledge-based societyorientation, globalization, marketization, etc.), governmental higher education
policy, knowledge reconstruction as the basis of academic work in the university(including system, sector, type, region, etc.) and also its direct effect on the AP(for example, the demands for accountability). In the case of the relationshipbetween knowledge (i.e. disciplines) and the AP, there can be an international
scientific community effect operating directly on the AP without the mediation of
the university. The AP is necessarily reconstructed by its reaction to theseeffects (for example, in orientation towards academic freedom and professional
identity).
iii) Currently, models and typologies of the AP are formed at the level of theworld, nation, institution, and organization.
First, at world level, the AP embodies knowledge as its intellectual
substance just as in the university where academic work is composed ofknowledge as operative material and has a deep relationship with academic
disciplines as advanced knowledge. It is formation of a research network in theinternational scientific community by way of academic disciplines, yielding
similar structures and functions to the extent that inclines it to makecomparatively similar models and typologies.
In this regard, it is clear that the AP has conformed to the main models, suchas the German, Anglo-Saxon, Latin-American ones in the 20th Century,corresponding to the birth of modern universities in the 19th century, and whichwere originally derived from the prototype that was imprinted upon the medieval
universities such as Paris and Bologna (Rashdall, 1936).
Second, at the national system level, American, Korean, Japanese models,etc. which are derived from the prototype have developed in the process ofinstitutionalization of modern universities.

6
Third, at the institution and organization level, below that of the system,
various models have developed in response to the needs of their sectors, sections,and types. These models, developed across the worldwide and national systems,
are proceeding by a “scrap and build” process of dynamic movement towards
universalism and particularism. In this context, we can hypothesize that newmodels are developing today as part of the process of change from the 20th to the
21st century.
iv) To realize these hypotheses theoretically and positively on the basis ofobserving the real situations, it is necessary to make a comprehensive andcomparative study of the formation, development, and reconstruction of the AP.
In particular, it becomes most important to study systematically the various
models of the AP, especially those national system models that are located at thecore and that comprise the various stratifications of the AP in the world, system,
institution and organization typologies. From this viewpoint, the study aims toshed light on the individual national systems of the AP through focusing on thefour identifiable levels, i) ii) iii) and iv). Analysis of the findings is based on
the following frameworks.
(5) Framework of the study
In order to realize the process of institutionalization, development, andreconstruction of AP within and between each system, a theoretical study has
been conducted by focusing on social change, government, knowledge,
university and structure and function (and dysfunction) of the AP. The specificframeworks being used and the expected outcomes of the study are as follows:i) to identify the effects of social changes (the development ofknowledge-based society orientation, globalization, and marketization in theinternational, national and regional societies) (arrow a of Figure 2) on the AP and
the functions that the AP contributes to society (arrow b).
ii) to identify the effects that national government (mainly through higher
education policy and plans on budgets, academic affairs, evaluation, etc. and on
the governance of the university) impose on the AP (arrow c) and the functions
that the AP contributes to the government (arrow d).
iii) to identify the effects that knowledge (differentiation and integration ofknowledge, reconstruction of knowledge, the international scientific community
and research network related to individual discipline.) provides for the AP (arrowe), and the contributions that the AP makes to knowledge through academic
work (arrow f).
iv) to identify the effects that university (system, sector, section, hierarchy,

7etc.) gives to the AP (arrow g) and the functions that the AP gives to theuniversity (arrow h).
v) On the basis of the perspectives related to the elements i) ii) iii) and iv),
to identify the transformation and reconstruction of the AP image caused by the
structure and function of the AP itself (the institutionalization of the profession
into the university; the relationship between the function and role of knowledge
and disciplines [research, teaching, service, the administration and management,
the international scientific community, research network, brain drain, the relation
with formal knowledge and tacit knowledge, etc.], ascription [age, position, sex,etc.], culture and climate [ethos, value, mission, etc.], career pattern [scientificsocialization, recruitment, promotion, contract system, tenure, retirement, labor,
time spent for work, academic productivity, life-cycle, etc.], gender, the liaison ofuniversity and society, quality assurance, evaluation, etc.). This framework isused not only in theoretical research but also in the international and national
surveys undertaken in relation to the project.
(6) Academic characteristics and original traits
The study plan is expected to show a series of academic characteristics andoriginal traits in the study of higher education and the academic profession.
i) It is a creative study since it focuses on the construction and the formative
process of the AP which is thought to lie at the core of construction of a 21st
century university vision.
ii) An international comparative study on the construction of a 21st century
AP system model is considered to be a top-research area for higher education
research in the world.
iii) An international questionnaire survey that is to be one of exemplary
standard for research on the AP and which is conducted in cooperation with
distinguished researchers throughout the world.
At the same time, areconsideration of the Carnegie Survey after fifteen years is valuable with regard
to recognition of new developments in the AP worldwide.
iv) A national survey is expected to have a fruitful outcome related to themain theme by conducting a supplemental survey covering matters such as
gathering opinions of various stakeholders (administrators, students, academic
staff and knowledgeable people in society) to shed light on the case studies ofquality assurance of the AP and its evaluation.
v) From the standpoint of the study methodology, it is a unique in the pointthat it is a comprehensive study consisting of various approaches including
theoretical study, questionnaire survey, interview, international seminar and case8
study. In addition, it is notable in that it intends to analyze the main theme froman interdisciplinary approach, as the researchers participating in the project
represent a variety of disciplines including comparative higher education, higher
education, comparative education, sociology, history, educational technology,
and science and technology policy.
(7) Expected outcomes and implicationsi) to recognize the longitudinal transformation of the AP system model
which was lacking in the Carnegie Survey because of its focus on thecontemporary situation of the AP.
ii) to analyze specifically the present situations and problems related toindividual system models, such as the German, Anglo-Saxon, and Latin
American models.
iii) to identify the national and international reconstruction process
occurring in the main system models.
iv) to establish by case studies the reconstruction process of the AP in theinstitutions and organizations connected to the national systems.
v) to offer proposals with regard to problems arising in the policy forconstruction of the 21st century AP system for Japan from an international
perspective.
(8) Location of the project in the relevant researches from national andinternational perspectivesi) The project attempts to achieve the standing of the top-study in higher
education research in the world. This is attainable by synthesizing thepreceding body of systematic studies on the AP by outstanding research groups
inside and outside Japan (Bowen & Schuster, 1986; Clark, 1987, Clark, ed.,1987; Altbach, 1996, 2002; Finkelstein, Seal & Schuster, 1998; Shinbori, 1984;
Welch, 2005).
ii) A study of the process of constructing the AP is a challenge in higher
education research to the extent that it focuses on the world models, including theGerman, Anglo-Saxon, and Latin American models, and also on the past, present
and future of the individual system model in connection to, for example, the US,
UK, China, and Japan. Our project has more methodological strength than the
Carnegie Survey, which has been the most prominent research thus far in therelevant field, in that the latter focused only on the current structure and functionof the AP (Altbach, 1996; Arimoto & Ehara, eds., 1996).
In addition, as far as methodology is concerned, our project deals with the9concept of knowledge as a digital model, by paying more attention to a conceptof sociology of science, which was introduced into Japan since the 1970’s by the
publications of Robert Merton and others, than to the concept of higher education
development, an analogue model, which became a prevailing model in Japanafter its introduction by the publication of an article by Martin Trow in the1970’s.
It is interesting to note that this analogue model prevailed over the digital model
for many years, although the two concepts were introduced into this country at
almost same time. (cf. Arimoto, 1987, 2006b; Becher, 1989; Clark, 1983, 1993,
1995; Gibbons et al., 1994; Parry, 2005).
iii) The project incorporates various fields: academic work related toresearch, teaching, service, administration and management; academic
productivity; faculty development (FD); academic nepotism and inbreeding;scholarship; quality assurance and evaluation. Some preceding researches
addressed aspects of these fields (Shinbori, 1965; Shinbori & Arimoto, 1969;
Arimoto, 1981, 2005a; Yamanoi, 1990, 2007; Arimoto, ed., 1994; Yamasaki,
1995; Boyer, 1990). A comprehensive comparative study of these various fields,from both vertical and horizontal axes, is included in the new research.
iv) Consideration of the relationship between society, government,
knowledge and university is based on preceding researches done by the project
leader (Arimoto, 1981, 2005a, b, c).
v) Finally, another important aspect resides in that the project seeks topropose policies useful in the construction of an appropriate Japanese AP fromthe systematic international comparative study of the AP around the world.

2. The Japanese AP: its characteristics(1) Traits of population structurei) In the fifteen years since the Carnegie study, the numbers of all
universities, students, academic staff, non-academic staff have gradually
increased. In 1990 the numbers were as follows: universities, 507; students,
2,133,362; academic staff, 123,838. By 2006 they had risen to: 744; 2,865,051;
and 164,483 respectively (MEXT, 2008), corresponding to increases by factors of
1.5, 1.3, and 1.3, respectively.
ii) There are quite a few differences among the national, public, and private
university sectors regarding the numbers of universities, students, academic staff
and non-academic staff. Numerically the private sector is larger than the othertwo sectors. Table 1 illustrates this in the case of students where the proportionin the private sector is 73.7%.

10
Table 1. Trend in number of students 1995-2005
T otalF em ale

N ational

L ocalPrivateP ercentage o f:

F em alePrivate

(% )

(% )

1955
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
2000

523,355
626,421937,556
1,406,521
1,734,082
1,835,312
1,848,698
2,133,362
2,546,649
2,740,023

65,081
85,966
152,119
252,745368,258
405,529434,401
584,155
821,893992,312

186,055
194,227
238,380
309,587357,772
406,644449,373
518,609598,723
624,082

24,93628,56938,277
50,11150,88052,082
54,94464,14083,812
107,198

312,364
403,625
660,899
1,046,823
1,325,430
1,376,586
1,344,381
1,550,613
1,864,114
2,008,743

12.4
13.7
16.2
18.0
21.2
22.1
23.5
27.4
32.3
36.2

59.7
64.4
70.5
74.4
76.4
75.0
72.7
72.7
73.2
73.3

01
02
03
04
05

2,765,705
2,786,032
2,803,980
2,809,295
2,865,051

1,026,398
1,059,944
1,087,431
1,100,839
1,124,900

622,679
621,487
622,404
624,389
627,850

112,523
116,705
120,463
122,864
124,9102,030,503
2,047,840
2,061,113
2,062,042
2,112,291

37.1
38.0
38.8
39.2
39.3

73.4
73.5
73.5
73.4
73.7

Table 2. Universities and junior colleges
Universities

1955
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
2000

228
245
317
382
420
446
460
507
565
649

72
72
73
75
81
93
95
96
98
99

34
33
35
33
34
34
34
39
52
72

122
140
209
274
305
319
331
372
415
478

Percentage
of private
(%)
53.5
57.1
65.9
71.7
72.6
71.5
72.0
73.4
73.5
73.7

01
02
03
04
05

669
686
702
709
726

99
99
100
87
87

74
75
76
80
86

496
512
526
542
553

74.1
74.6
74.9
76.4
76.2

Evening courses

115

35

8

72

62.6

Master's courses

540

87

71

382

70.7

Doctor's courses

409

75

52

282

68.9

Professional degree courses

92

27

3

62

67.4

Total

National

Local

Private(Recounted)
Universities providing:

Universities providing
programs by correspondence
and mass media

(32)

35

－

－

(32)

35

100.0

Graduate schools providing
programs by correspondence
and mass media

(17)

19

－

－

(17)

19

100.0

(Note) Figures in parentheses refer to those providing regular courses as well as correspondence courses.

1711
Junior Colleges

1955
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
2000

264
280
369
479
513
517
543
593
596
572

17
27
28
22
31
35
37
41
36
20

43
39
40
43
48
50
51
54
60
55

204
214
301
414
434
432
455
498
500
497

Percentage
of private
(%)
77.3
76.4
81.6
86.4
84.6
83.6
83.8
84.0
83.9
86.9

01
02
03
04
05

559
541
525
508
488

19
16
13
12
10

51
50
49
45
42

489
475
463
451
436

87.5
87.8
88.2
88.8
89.3

31

－

4

27

87.1

9

－

－

9

100.0

Total

(Recounted)

Colleges providing
evening courses
Colleges providing
programs by correspondence
and mass media(9)

National

Private

Local

(9)

18

(Note) Figures in parentheses refer to those providing regular courses as well as correspondence courses.

As Table 2 shows, the private sector quantitatively occupies a majority shareof the market with 553 (76.2%) of the total of 726 institutions as of 2005. The
national sector with 87 (12%) and the public sector with 86 (12%) provide
smaller shares.
As far as academic research enterprise is concerned, the share of the private
sector is still high, with 282 (68.9%) of the total of 409 doctoral courses.
However, it is the national sector that enrolls and graduates a large majority(approximately 70%) of doctoral students. For example, in 2005, new entrants
to doctoral courses numbered 17,553, of which 11,937 (68.0%) were enrolled in
the national sector, 4,526 (25.7%) in the private sector, and 1,091 (6.2%) in the
public sector (MEXT, 2006a). The reason why the national research enterprise
is so well developed is due to the history of higher education over the past
century.
Table 3. Number of teachers in universities and colleges in 2007
Total

Male

FemaleNational

Local

Private% of female

University

167,648

137,124

30,52460,995

12,786

94,867

18.2

Junior college

11,015

5,681

5,384

――

941

10,07448.9

12iii) During the period 1990 to 2002，the enrollment ratios in universities andcolleges have increased from 24.6% (male 33.4%, female 15.2%) in 1990 to40.5% (male 47.0%, female 33.8%) in 2002. These figures conform to thephenomenon of rapid higher education development from a massified to auniversal stage. In 2007, the enrollment ratios reached 54% in which all
students who seek to go to universities and colleges were able to be admitted
somewhere without the necessity of passing any entrance examination. This
amounts to provision of an Open Door University: while this is indeed
theoretically true, in reality the differentiation between institutions is increasing
in terms of competition in entrance standards.
iv) In accordance with the increasing diversification of students, a declining
trend of student achievement has been often discussed among people inside andoutside academia. When the Carnegie Survey was conducted in 1992, theenrollment ratio in universities and colleges was 26.4 (male 35.2%, female
17.3%). At that time, academic staff who responded to the questionnaire clearly
opposed increased enrollment (Arimoto & Ehara, eds., 1996). However,contrary to their wishes, massification has been extended to the level of universal
access. It is not surprising that academic staff’s complaints about student
quality and achievement have increased more and more during this time.
v) Accordingly, academic staff, who number 178,663 (university 167,643,
junior college 11,015) in 2007 as shown in Table 3, are increasingly required tohave enough expertise and ability to respond to a universal stage where students’
diversification is predicted to increase to great extent. Academics areconfronted with how to maintain, enhance, and provide quality assurance ofstudents’ achievement and learning ability in order to satisfy the level of higher
education. For example, it is noticeable in recent years that a series of reforms
and experiments have been introduced into universities and colleges: first year
education; remedial education; career education; GPA and CAP; credit systems;
syllabuses; office hours; tutorial systems; FD; self-evaluation; third-party
evaluation. In 2007, the Central Council for Education proposed the concept ofgakushi-ryoku, or achievement eligible for a bachelor’s degree, in order toenhance the educational standards of undergraduate education to aninternationally competitive level (CCE, 2007). From translating the outstanding
work of the QAA (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education) on “Subject
Benchmark Statements”, we noted that the UK has developed further than Japanin terms of the quality assurance of academic degrees (Arimoto, ed., 2007).
vi) The size of the eighteen-year old cohort in Japan is declining and thetrend will continue into the future. In 2007, the eighteen-year old cohort was

13
1.25 million and expectations are that it will decrease to 0.9 million in theforeseeable future. To sustain the current enrollment will require an increase
the numbers of adult students as well as of international students in addition to ahigher proportion of eighteen-year old students. Already about 40% of theprivate universities and colleges have not been able to achieve their planned
enrollment in 2007 (Yomiuri, 2008).
vii) It is evident that the proportion of female academic staff remains fairly
small by international standards. In 1992, the Carnegie Survey noted thatfemale academic staff comprised 8% on average in the four-year universities andcolleges (Altbach, ed., 1996; Arimoto & Ehara, eds., 1996). That was thesecond lowest proportion, following that of Germany, in the participating
countries in the survey. In 2007, it remains low although the figure has
improved to around 14% (Arimoto, Daizen, Fujimura & Urata, 2007d). Its
improvement to a level of about at least 30% is an urgent problem to be solvedby the universities and colleges.
viii) Aging of the academic staff is manifestly increasing. In the workingof a traditional permanent employment system that is no longer expanding, aging
is inescapable. This confronts the system with a difficult situation in the lack ofrecruitment of young staff to first stage positions in academic careers such as
research associates (jokyo) and lecturers. There are quite a few post-doctorals
who are waiting for job placement.
(2) Research orientationi) The fact that Japanese academic staff have a strong research orientation in
the world was evident in the Carnegie Survey (Arimoto & Ehara, eds., 1996).
According to the results the orientation of AP falls into three groups: one groupwith a research orientation belongs to the German institutional type; a second
group with a research and teaching orientation belongs to the Anglo-Saxon
institutional type; and a third group with a teaching orientation belongs to theLatin American institutional type. Japan belongs to the German type, together
with countries such as the Netherlands, Sweden, and Korea (Arimoto & Ehara,eds., 1996).
It is easily understandable that faculty members in research universities are
inclined to show a research orientation, but it is surprising that the results clearly
demonstrate that all academic staff, not only those in research universities but
also those in other universities, show a research orientation. The extent ofresearch orientation seems to be still high, even though we consider the rather
high percentage of respondents in the sample who belong to the category of

14
research universities. As a result, the fact that a research orientation is higher
than a teaching orientation in the Japanese AP is thought to be a systemic
characteristic.
ii) The prototype of this inclination already existed in the pre-war period,
though it was gradually promoted during the post-war period. Advanced
models of higher education were intentionally introduced in Japan in the pre-war
period, as the objective was to catch up with the advanced models in the westerncountries. At that time the German model was conceived to be the mostadvanced and worthy of importation. The integration of research and teachingthat Wilhelm von Humboldt proclaimed was thought to be an ideal of higher
education. However, as Burton Clark has pointed out, it was not realized welleven in Germany in spite of the origin of the concept (Clark, 1995). After
having imported the German model, the US invented the graduate school system
where, to a considerable extent, the ideal was realized. In trying to import theGerman model during that time, Japan failed to import its spirit into theprevailing climate of degree-ocracy and bureaucracy in universities (Ushiogi,
1984; Amano, 1986; Arimoto, 2007e). In particular integration of the twofunctions of teaching and research was not successfully introduced to the extent
that the research paradigm prevailed to a large extent across the universities andcolleges, especially in the cluster of teikoku daigaku, or imperial universities.
iii) Research orientation has a close relationship with catching up withadvanced countries in terms of the center of learning. In the 19th century,
Germany provided the target to be caught up, while in the 21st century the US
acquired the target status when it became the center of learning.
Making a comparison of the numbers of published papers and listings in the
Science Citation Index, we can recognize the leadership of the US over at least
the recent twenty years. It is remarkable that Japan, which in 1977 Ben-David
described as located on the periphery of learning (Ben-David, 1977), has now
become close to the center of learning.
It is a fact that the numbers of papers and citations related to Japan are
dominated by the group of former imperial universities. In other words, thecenter of academic productivity is situated at the research universities, whichconstitute about 4% of all Japanese universities.
iv) Higher education policy has developed with an investment of fundinglargely concentrated in a few national universities since the pre-war period.
Consequently a small number of some of these research universities havebecome leading institutions in academic productivity. As Burton Clark pointed
out, a pinnacle of hierarchy has been established (Clark, 1983). It is manifest

15that recent higher education policy has sought to raise the international
competitiveness of academic productivity in Japan by way of heavy investmentof resources in these universities. This is clearly demonstrated by the selection
process for the global COE institutions in 2007. The application ratio of
research groups in the former imperial universities was itself fairly high,amounting to 27%, or 75 among the 281 applicants, but the success rate was evenhigher at 51%, or as many as 32 among the 63 selected research groups, perhaps
indicating a monopoly situation (Arimoto, 2007c).
(3) Relationship with the center of learning: US research universities andJapanese research universities
i) There is a question: “Can the Japanese research university become acenter of learning, or a COE in the world?” This is an interesting question as
we discuss the COE from a perspective of the culture and climate of the research
universities in Japan and the US. Probably, it is not possible for any Japanese
research universities to become the center of learning, or the COE, although it
may be possible in specific fields, because a mechanism synthesizing culture andclimate must affect the formation of such a center of learning.
The research orientation intrinsic to Japanese academic culture is unlikely to
be valuable for attaining the status of center of learning. While integration ofresearch and teaching has been successful in the US, it has not been successful inJapan. Moreover, the delayed institutionalization of the graduate school inJapan also confirms the delayed institutionalization of a home for science.
There are many differences between the two countries with regard to policies on
promotion of the research system based on graduate schools. For example, in
the US, inbreeding has been controlled since the late 19th century as Pierson andother researchers have discussed (Pierson, 1952; Caplow & McGee, 1958;
Brown, 1968; Shils, 1979). On the other hand, in Japan, it was not controlled
and actually rather encouraged to the extent that it still exists to a considerable
degree. For example, study of the ‘big four’ reveals a still high inbreeding ratio
in 2003: Tokyo, 78.0%; Kyoto, 72.3%; Waseda, 71.2%; Keio, 63.8% (Yamanoi,2007).
ii) Figure 3 compares the macro traits of culture, climate, and institution
between Japan and the US, identifying fairly different traits of the two countries
despite restricting the comparison to research universities.
Four quadrants are defined by a vertical axis representing achievement andascription and a horizontal axis representing universalism and particularism.
By these measures, Japan is located in the third quadrant, with the US in the first16
quadrant. If the Japanese research university aims to become the center oflearning, it has to conform to the culture and climate of the current center oflearning. In other words, it requires a transformation from the third to the first
quadrant, or Americanization.
In the field of sciences, especially natural sciences, the academic staff areaccustomed to using universalism rather than particularism in evaluating theiracademic productivity.
Accordingly, Americanization is not impossible.
However, there are quite a few other differences between the two systems.
Such differences cannot be resolved without recognizing the different culturesand climates proper to the two systems. In this sense the question remains,“Why is it inevitable in the scientific and academic community to have a shift
from cultural diversity to cultural unification among the systems?”

achievement
OpenedＵＳ

Holizontal typeparticularism

universalism
ClosedＪａｐａｎ

Vertical typeascription
Figure 3. Shift from ascription to achievement and from particularism touniversalism(4) Less teaching orientation
It is true to say that strengths and weaknesses constitute two sides of thesame coin: a large research orientation coexists with a small teaching orientation.
In the 19th and 20th centuries when the research paradigm gradually prevailed
throughout the world, it is also true to say that a commitment to teaching in termsof its institution, culture, climate, consciousness and behavior has declined incomparison with research not only in Japan but also in many other countries.
Nevertheless, it is clear that a teaching orientation has been persistently weak in17Japanese higher education as is shown by the results of the Carnegie Survey. It
is on this basis that the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, and Technology(MEXT) has paid much attention to teaching reforms since the 1990’s with theintroduction of a series of new policies (MEXT, 2005).
For example, institutionalization of Faculty Development (FD) has been
rapidly promoted since the 1990’s. A semi-obligation to FD was introduced
into the universities and colleges in 1998 and expanded to a full obligation in
2004. The essence of its institutionalization is shown by the emphasis now
placed on teaching (University Council, 1998). In a climate of strong researchorientation, a policy of strengthening teaching seems reasonable. However, its
implementation is likely to be problematic from the viewpoint that an integrationof research and teaching is necessary. FD consists of two concepts: the broadconcept is focused on a comprehension of various areas such as research,teaching, service, and administration; the narrow concept focuses on teaching.
The fact that all academic staff are asked to practice the narrow concept as a legal
obligation is probably effective in controlling the strong research orientation but
is less effective in promoting research still further.
(5) Reconsideration of scholarship
Accordingly, separation of research and teaching is to be avoided asstrongly as possible. Emphasis either only on research or only on teaching is
not an adequate provision for academia in which the integration of the twofunctions constitutes an ideal. The former may be an obligation in research
institutes, and the latter in elementary and secondary schools. Certainly, theresearch paradigm has become prevalent throughout the world by diffusion from
Germany to other countries, even though integration of research and teaching has
been proclaimed since the 19th century. It is also true in the US even though the
integration has been more successful there than in many other locations.
In evidence, Boyer proclaimed the need for a reconsideration of scholarshipand was grieved over the regression of a teaching orientation in the US (Boyer,1990). He proposed a concept of scholarship consisting of research, application,
integration, and teaching, and put teaching at the top of a stratified structure. If
we view the Japanese situation from this perspective, it is apparently outdone by
the US.
In the 21st century when universalization is promoted, it is said that the AP
has to pay attention to learning even more than teaching. However, Boyer’s
model, which does not stress learning sufficiently, still has limitations for the 21st
century when universal access will be substantially realized. How to resolve

18
the problem of coordination among research, teaching, and learning will become
the next step after resolving the present problem of attaining an integration ofresearch and teaching.
(6) Trait of administration and managementi) Internationally, academic administration and management has graduallyencouraged rationalization and efficiency through the influence of marketization.
In this regard, Japan is not exceptional. The establishment of the national
universities as corporate bodies has strengthened the impact of market
mechanisms so that a rapid change from bottom-up to top-down administrationand management has become manifest (CCE, 2005).
ii) The status and prestige of the AP have clearly declined by 2007 incomparison with 1992. As the status of academic staff has declined, thestatuses of administrators and students have been promoted to a considerable
degree (Arimoto, Daizen, Fujimura & Urata, 2007d). Professors, who havetraditionally had remarkable conformity with academic freedom and autonomy,
are now experiencing feelings of alienation.
(7) Under-enrollment in and closure of private universitiesi) As described previously, the private sector surpasses the national andpublic sectors in the numbers of institutions, academic staff, non-academic staff,
and students. For example, the private sector provides 73% of all institutions
and 75% of students. This fact really illustrates the results of governmental
policies in the post-war period, which were to control the quantitative expansionof the national sector and to maintain the quality of higher education at themassification stage. However, the numbers of institutions in the private sector
are still increasing due to a national policy attempting to maintain an increase ofabout 10 institutions per year.
ii) The recent open door to enrollment has brought about under-enrollment
in the private universities. This is inevitable as the numbers of institutions are
increasing while the numbers of students are decreasing. This is an obvious
example of the operation of a market economy responding to supply and demand
instead of a planned economy in which a ‘knowledge community’ determines thescale of provision of higher education. It is also an indication of the role of a‘knowledge corporation’ which extends the role of the entrepreneur and of theknowledge economy leading to managerialism as in the business world.
iii) Recently, 40% of private institutions are facing the consequences ofunder-enrollment. In general, it is true to say that the problems are concentrated

19
in the small, local, and newly established institutions; in contrast the large, urban,
and traditional institutions face pressures from over-enrollment. In 2007, a totalof 3.02 million applicants applied to the 559 private institutions; of these 1.44
million, or 47.6%, were concentrated in only 23 institutions, which already havethe largest enrollments, each numbering more than 3,000 (Yomiuri, 2008). A
few of the 23 institutions, about 4% of all private institutions, are clearlymonopolizing the enrollments: each of these institutions, including Waseda,
Meiji, and Kansai Universities, attracted more than 100,000 applicants (Yomiuri,ibid).
Naturally, being under-strength in the private sector brings about amanagement crisis in the first place and a closure crisis in the second place. As
far as academic staff are concerned, it is a warning of impending dismissal,
part-time employment, decline of status together with a general collapse of thepresent lifelong employment and seniority system.
(8) Emerging differentiated societyi) Appearance of a closure crisis of institutions is a clear indicator of thepolarization of institutions into haves and have-nots. Of course, the Matthew
principle is working here. Reorganization of institutions is forced to proceedwith various types of nexus, integration and merger taking place. In due course,
the academic staff are involved in these changes. The differentiation extends
gradually in various fields including status, prestige, power, reputation, salaries,
bonuses, research grants, charges for trips, teaching classes and so forth.
ii) In society at large, people have paid much attention to the emergence of adifferentiated society to the extent that several phenomena such as NEETs (not in
education, employment or training), Freeters (under-employed, part-timeworkers), and the working poor have received nationwide media attention(Kosugi, 2005). Similar phenomena are emerging in academia and among
academic staff.
iii) Government financial aid to universities is being reduced annually,
though research-centered funding is increasing (Arimoto, 2005c). The former
stood at ¥2.09 trillion in fiscal 2001 and was cut by about 9% by fiscal 2007.
Basic educational expenses were reduced from 86% to 73%, while
research-centered allocated funds nearly doubled from 14% to 27%. As will be
discussed later, this trend suggests that research-oriented competition is being
encouraged in all universities so as to extract funds from the national government.
In this context, the differentiation between the group of research oriented
universities and the group of non-research universities is necessarily increased.

20

3. CAP in Japan and its implication for CAP in the world
The traits of CAP in Japan can be seen to have problems partly intrinsic toJapanese culture and partly common to the CAP in the world. In Japan, atransformation from the old structure to a new structure is bringing about
structural conflicts in academia and also in the academic staff. The conflicts
include: student diversification at a time of universal access to higher education;
separation of research and teaching; an increase of time for teaching and adecrease of time for research; administration and management changed frombottom-up to top-down; reduced government basic financial provision for
academic staff as well as institutions; a rising feeling of alienation in theacademic staff; the gender problem in terms of still too few female academic
staff; the part-time employment of academic staff; a still high ratio of inbreedingin some research universities; reinforcement of external evaluation;
institutionalization of FD as a legal obligation; increasing under-enrollment, theclosure of institutions and a differentiated society in academia.
These problems are important individually and collectively and share quite afew mutual relationships. They are the structural problems that the universities
and the AP in Japan have been increasingly confronted with in recent years. We
can recognize problems unique to Japan and also those common to othercountries. In the following sections, some consideration is given to the shared,common problems.
(1) Quality of the AP in an age of universal access beyond that of massification
Recently, the diversity of higher education has manifestly been madebroader by introduction of new provisions including first-year education
programs, career education, remedial education, liberal arts education, andprofessional education. In addition, how to develop the quality and ability of theacademic staff has become part of the process of implementing educational
diversification to cope with student diversity.
As a result, theinstitutionalization of FD has become one of the most important reforms inhigher education. Transformation of the role and vision of the AP in the 21st
century is compelled when the developmental stage of higher education moves
from post-massification to the stage of universal access. Basically, quality
assurance of teaching and education is necessary to enable the emerging stage ofhigher education to be accommodated and hence ensure the relevant
development of the AP’s quality and ability.

21(2) Quality of research
For the AP, research as well as teaching is a mission in that both areconsidered to be the two indispensable vehicles of academic work. In fact, thecenter of learning is formed internationally around research activity with intensecompetition for priority in discovery of knowledge. We can recognize there arevarious kinds of commonalities and differences between the research university
system in Japan and that in the US which is acknowledged as the center oflearning today (Arimoto, ed., 1996). The scientific community belongs
basically to the world of CUDOS: communality, universalism, disinterestedness,and organized skepticism (Merton, 1973). In application of this principle,
attempts to become the world’s center of learning are hardly credible without
conforming to the US type of a research university, or its culture of research. Is
it possible for an institution to attain that target by starting with its own culture ofresearch? It probably needs an international comparative study on research
universities and their own cultures in individual countries in order to approach
this question (MEXT, 2006; NISTEP, 2007).
(3) Formation of a ‘creation and exportation’ type higher education
Japan has selectively imported advanced models of higher education fromwestern countries since the Meiji restoration when institutionalization of modern
higher education was started. The German model was imported pre-war and the
US model was imported post-war. Is it possible to transform from this kind of
non-creative and imported type of higher education to one of creation andexportation? In an age of globalization and marketization, is it possible for acenter of learning to export its own model to other countries worldwide so that its
model can serve in these countries as a basis for unification? This seems tohave high possibility in the field of research in which the ethos of CUDOS
applies as has been previously discussed.
In this sense, Americanization is likely to prevail throughout the world and aunified cultural model is inclined to control cultural diversity. How to
overcome this? The answer to this question is necessarily related to the
problem of knowledge reconstruction. Conversion from cultural uniformity tocultural diversity is undertaken through the operation and mechanism ofknowledge reconstruction in centers of excellence in the scientific and academic
community (Kuhn, 1970; Nakayama, 1984; Shinbori, 1985; Arimoto, 2007a,2008).

22(4) Integration of research and teachingi) The present higher education policy in Japan focuses on an extension to
its research orientation. Significantly, a Special Committee to the Prime
Minister proposed budgetary allocations solely based on a research competition
among all institutions of higher education. The policy seeks to allocate
resources as well as budgets selectively to specific universities that have acapacity to achieve high research productivity.
As some simulations show, many universities do not have highcompetitiveness. For example, according to a simulation made by the Ministryof Finance, as many as 74 of the 87 national universities would lose resourcesfrom such an allocation. The MEXT also reported similar difficulties for 37
institutions from its own study (Yomiuri, 2008). As these simulations predict,many universities, especially local universities and teacher training universities,
which are involved in teaching rather than research, will lose resources and as aresult bring about poor conditions and pressures for teaching and education.
ii) Needless to say, research is basically important in higher education.
From the perspective of the lengthy history of higher education, teaching was
firmly located at the core of the medieval university. In the 21st century,
teaching remains clearly important whenever we think about both students’learning and educational support for them. Considering the 800-year history ofhigher education, research has become a major component only in the last 200
years since its institutionalization in the modern university. During this time,
the separation between research and teaching has increased, amplifying bothways of increasing the research paradigm and the neglect of teaching. In
academic work, the academic staff has to combine the roles of researcher andteacher. It is essentially different from the elementary and secondary schools
where teaching is above all the most important role. As Light pointed out,
research is a basic qualification for the academic profession (Light, 1974).
Accordingly, the two roles of research and teaching are basic for certification of
the AP. It follows that the integration of research and teaching is still necessary
in the 21st century.
iii) Higher education, especially in the university, has a great social mission
for the development of human resources. How to train high quality manpower
is considered to be the most important role and function for academic staff andacademia worldwide. It is not exceptional even in Japan.
Higher education, and again especially the university, has the mostimportant responsibility of finding, training, and teaching those who are to be
responsible for the future, and of providing an assurance of quality to them.

23
Research is the premise on which this teaching stands. In this sense,
reconsideration of scholarship in Boyer’s sense identifies the problem of
emphasizing the significance of teaching. It is an integration of research andteaching rather than a separation of the two functions that is required.
Furthermore, in the emerging universal access stage of development of higher
education, not only an emphasis on student’s learning is required but also
strengthening support for it indicating the need to reconsider scholarship fromthe basis of student learning. Specifically, an integration of research, teaching,and learning is essential.
iv) Importance of academic freedom and academic autonomy. Top-down
administration and management has been embodied in the recent fifteen years inuniversities and colleges in Japan. The swing of this pendulum has moved fromautonomy imbedded at the level of the faculty meeting to that at the level of theuniversity. Arrangements for accountability and relevance, rationalization andefficiency have been encouraged in the academic organization. As a result theuniversity has been transformed from a knowledge community to a knowledge
enterprise. The emerging knowledge economy has invaded the scientific ethosof CUDOS that prevailed in the traditional university. Operation of market
mechanisms together with the knowledge economy are the sources of conflicts
between accountability and academic autonomy. It is natural that the university,
which is a social institution, organization and group, will lose its social raisond’être without adaptation to societal demands. However, it is also natural thatover-conformity implies the loss the unique nature of the academic organization.
What is the university, which has 800-year history behind it, at the beginning of
the 21st century? At least a reconsideration of the true nature of the university isrequired inside and outside academia.

4. Intentions and methods of the CAP survey in 1992 and 2007
(1) The 1992 survey: intentions and methods
The Carnegie Survey was conducted by the Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching in fourteen countries (precisely, thirteen countries andone region): the US, the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Russia, Sweden, Mexico,
Brazil, Chile, Australia, Japan, Korea, Israel and Hong Kong. From Japan,
Akira Arimoto, Professor at the Research Institute for Higher Education,
Hiroshima University, participated as the Japanese project leader.
This was the first international and large survey on the academic profession
with a diversified questionnaire. The main items consisted of seven parts: 1. a24
profile of the AP; 2. access to higher education; 3. professional activity; 4. labor
conditions; 5. administration and management; 6. higher education and society; 7.
international aspects of academic life.
The project leaders from each country gathered together in Princeton in1991 to discuss the ideas of the survey, to prepare a common questionnaire thatwas later translated into each country’s language and finally to conduct thesurvey in each country.
(2) The 2007 survey; intentions and methodsi) Some of the original committee members gathered together for the firsttime in Paris in December 2004 to discuss the idea of a new Carnegie survey. It
named the project as “CAP” because of the transformation of the AP during some
fifteen years after the first survey. A second meeting was held in London in
July 2005, followed by a third meeting in Hiroshima in February 2006, and afourth meeting in Kassel in September 2006. During these four meetings theideas of the project were discussed by the steering committee members andrepresentatives of all the participating countries in more detail. It is not an over
simplification to say that this new survey will also be a large international survey
on a scale equivalent to that of the first survey.
ii) The steering committee and some members in charge of samplingexamined carefully a manual for it. A technical meeting for sampling was held
in British Columbia, Canada in November 2006. Based on this manual, eachcountry conducted the survey. The method of sampling used in each country isalmost equivalent to that of the first survey. At least in Japan, the sampling weused was same as for the first survey. Expenditures for the survey have been
provided by each individual country so that all countries could conduct thesurvey in 2007.
iii) In this new survey, the participating countries agreed to share a common
questionnaire as indicated above. The common questionnaire required large
modifications to the original questionnaire of the Carnegie survey in order toincorporate adequate attention to the environmental changes affecting the AP
over the past fifteen years. Each country translated the common questionnaire
into its own mother tongue for its individual survey.
iv) All participating countries were expected to conduct the survey as earlyas possible in 2007. In the event not all have been able to conducted the survey
thus far mostly because of a shortage of funding.
v) At the international conference on January 28-29, 2008, each country is
expected to present its own country report on the basis of the survey it

25
conducted.
(3) Meanings of the CAP surveyi) A new record of an international large survey. As previously discussed,
it is a remarkable trait that the CAP survey is internationally the largest scale
survey ever conducted in the world in the field of research into the academic
profession, in which as many as 18 participating countries have collaborated to
conduct a questionnaire survey and perform research.
ii) Collaborative study with old and new member countries. Participationof new counties in the survey actually means that the problem of CAP has
become increasingly important and worthy of much attention worldwide.
iii) Analysis of the present situation of the CAP. As the title of the CAP
indicates, the survey makes a comparison of the changing academic profession in
2007, 15 years after the original survey in 1992. Internationally, theenvironmental changes around the AP have made it increasingly difficult tomaintain its traditional styles in the context of the social changes, the changes of
the government policies for higher education, and the scientific changes.
Overall, the status and prestige of the AP are reportedly declining worldwide(Altbach, ed., 2003). Therefore it is necessary to have for higher education
research an adequate analysis of the AP on the basis of real facts and also
proposals of how to deal with the AP from now on.
iv) Comparative study of the CAP in various countries in the world. From
this survey, each participating country can make clear the similarities as well as
differences of the CAP in its own country by comparison with the CAP in othercountries. There are, for example, various strengths and weaknesses withregard to the AP in Japan as has been discussed and so it will become possible todiagnose and prescribe the differences, similarities, and directions in aninternational perspective.
v) Functions of the knowledge model and knowledge. In an emerging
knowledge society, social weight and expectation increase for academia, which is
involved in discovery, dissemination, and application of knowledge. In thissense, an approach to the CAP from the perspective of a knowledge model isconsidered to be valuable (cf. Arimoto, 1973, 1981, 2005a, 2006b, 2007f).
As academic work is intimately related to the discovery and disseminationof knowledge, the mission and responsibilities of the AP in a knowledge-basedsociety are necessarily raised. In the eight century long history of higher
education, academic staff have pursued various roles in teaching, research,
service, administration and management, whenever these were needed socially26
and scientifically. It is an inevitable problem to know what kind of role isneeded from the AP today in order to predict precisely the relationship between
society and the AP in the future.
vi) Functions of the analogue and knowledge models. Related toparagraph v) above, more work is needed with a focus on examining theapproaches of the analogue and knowledge models. In the analogue model, we
can easily recognize the differences between advanced countries and developing
countries with regard to higher education development. Martin Trow, describedhigher education as developing linearly from elite, to mass, to a universal stage(Trow, 1973). According to the model, we can understand the distinction
between the advanced countries, which have already reached the stage ofuniversal access, and the developing countries, which have yet to reach that far.
Probably, an international comparison on the basis of the common questionnaire
will make clear the differences of individual countries in terms of suchdevelopmental stages. At the same time, it is undeniable that the current higher
education systems in the world are strengthening simultaneously, a circumstancethat can be explained more adequately by a digital model than the analogue
model (Arimoto, 2006b). This arises because both advanced countries anddeveloping countries today are confronting the same kinds of problems withpressures to resolve them as soon as possible.
vii) Conflicts between cultural diversity and cultural unification. Cultural
diversity is a characteristic of the AP in the world. However, a trend of cultural
unification is also observable in the fact that there are some phenomena such as
the North-South divide and brain-gain and brain-drain migrations. The trend ofgrowing globalization and marketization worldwide is likely to encourage
cultural importation, subordination, and colonization in developing countries;
and conversely, cultural exportation, control, and a suzerainty orientation inadvanced countries.
Figure 4 explains Japanese case for seeking identity by analogy withkeeping and innovating anpan (bean-jam bun) culture despite cultural conflicts.
How to respect and protect cultural diversity and how to discover methods to doso is important in higher education research (Cloete, Maassen, Fehnel, Moja,
Gibbons & Perold, 2006; Arimoto, 2008).

27

Figure 4.

Conflicts between cultural diversity and cultural unification:
Culture of “anpan” (bean-jam bun)

References
Altbach, P.G., Boyer, E., & Whitelaw, M.J. (1994). The Academic Profession; Portraits ofFourteen Countries. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Altbach, P.G. (ed.) (1996). The International Academic Profession: Portraits of Fourteen
Countries. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Altbach, P.G. (ed.) (2003). The Decline of the Guru: The Academic Profession in Developing
and Middle Income Countries. London: Palgrave McCmillan.
Amano, I. (1986). Japanese Structure of Higher Education Structure (in Japanese). Tokyo:
Tamagawa University Press.
Arimoto, A. (1974). Inbreeding in Foreign Countries. In S. Michiya (ed.) Inbreeding (inJapanese) (pp.184-257). Tokyo: Fukumura Publishing Co.
Arimoto, A. (1981). Sociology of Homo Academicus (in Japanese). Tokyo: Gakubunsha
Publishing Co.
Arimoto, A. (1987). Study of Sociology of Science in R.K. Merton: Formation andDevelopment of its Paradigm (in Japanese). Tokyo: Fukumura Publishing Co.
Arimoto, A. (2004). Higher Education Reforms: Determinants and Directions. In N.F. McGinn,(ed.), Learning through Collaborative Research: The Six Nations Education Research
Project (pp. 147-172). New York and London: Routledge Falmer.
Arimoto, A. (2005a). Academic Profession and FD: US and Japan (in Japanese). Tokyo:

28
Toshindo Publishing Co.
Arimoto, A. (2005b). National Research Policy and Higher Education Reforms in the Case ofJapan. Journal of Educational Planning and Administration, 19(2), 175-198.
Arimoto, A. (2005c). Structure and Function of Financing Asian Higher Education. Higher
Education in the World 2006. UNESCO-GUNI, 176-187.
Arimoto, A. (2006a). National Research Policy and Higher Education in Japan. In L. Meek andC. Suwanwela, (eds.), Higher Education, Research and Knowledge in the Asia andPacific Region (pp. 153-173). New York: Palgrave Mcmillan.
Arimoto, A. (2006b). Viewpoints of the Trow-and Knowledge-models from a International
Comparative Perspective Study of Higher Education. Higher Education Research inJapan (English Version of Article Originally Published in Daigaku Ronshu in 2003),
Hiroshima: Research Institute for Higher Education (RIHE), Hiroshima University, 1-20.
Arimoto, A. (2007a). Reconstruction of Knowledge: A Case of Educational Sociology (inJapanese). In A. Arimoto (ed.), Reconstruction of 21st Century type Higher Education andQuality Assurance; Final Report of COE (in Japanese) (pp.17-31). Hiroshima: RIHE,
Hiroshima University.
Arimoto, A. (2007b). Remarks on the Relationship between Knowledge Functions and theRole of the University. In S. Sorlin & H. Vessuri, (eds.), Knowledge Society vs.
Knowledge Economy: Knowledge, Power, and Politics (pp. 175-197). New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Arimoto, A. (2007c). Structure and Function of Research University: Japanese Perspective.
Fourth Session of the Regional Follow-up Committee for the1998 World Conference on
Higher Education “Internationalization of Higher Education in Asia-Pacific: Linkages,
Co-operation and Trade (pp.1-20).17-19 July 2007, Mandarin Hotel, Macao, P.R. China.
Arimoto, A. (2007d). (collaboration with Daizen, T., Fujimura, M., and Urata, H.) International
Survey on Academic Profession: Japanese version. The fourth International Seminar on
Academic Reforms, September 1-2, Dublin, Ireland, 2007, pp.1-39.
Arimoto, A. (2007e). Japan: Origins, History and Transition to a Universal Higher Education
System. In W. Locke & U. Teichler, (eds.), The Changing Conditions for Academic Workand Careers in Select Countries, Werkstattberichte 66 (pp. 113-126). International Centerfor Higher Education Research Kassel, University of Kassel.
Arimoto, A. (2007f). Reflections on the Changing Relevance of the Academic Profession in
Japan. In M. Kogan & U. Teichler, (eds.), Key Challenges to the Academic Profession (pp.
29-47). UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge/ International
Centre for Higher Education Research Kassel at the University of Kassel.
Arimoto, A. (2008). The Importance of Cultural Diversity in the Context of Higher Education
and Research, Cultural Diversity and Education Expert Seminar, UNESCOCAT,
Barcelona, 14-16 Jan, 2008, pp.1-17.

29
Arimoto, A. (ed.) (1996). Study of Centers of Learning (in Japanese). Tokyo: Toshindo
Publication Co.
Arimoto, A. (ed.) (2007). Benchmarking Statement on Academic degrees: QAA Report on
Subject Benchmark Statement (in Japanese). Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.
Arimoto, A., & Ehara, T. (ed.) (1996). International Comparison of the Academic Profession(in Japanese). Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press.
Arimoto, A., Huang, F., & Yokoyama, K. (eds.). (2005). Globalization and Higher Education(RIHE International Publication Series, No.9). Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.
Becher, T. (1981). Towards a definition of disciplinary cultures. Studies in Higher Education, 6,
109-22.
Becher, T. (1987). The disciplinary shaping of the profession. In B. Clark, (ed.), Academic
Profession: National, Dischiplinary and Intitutional Settings. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.
Becher, T. (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of thedisciplines. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Becher, T., & Parry, S. (2007). The Endurance of the Disciplines. In I. Bleiklie, and M. Henkel(eds.), Governing Knowledge: A Study of Continuity and Change in Higher Education－A
Festscrift in Honour of Maurice Kogan (pp. 133-144). Dordrecht: Springer.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P.R. (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual enquiry andthe cultures of the disciplines. Second Edition, Buckingham: The Society for Research
into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Ben-David, J. (1977). Centers of Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different scientific ares. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 57, 204-213.
Bleiklie, I., & Henkel, M., (2005). Governing Knowledge: A Study of Continuity and Change
in Higher Education: A Festshrift in Honor of Maurice Kogan. Dortrecht: Springer.
Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching.
Bowen, H.R., & Schuster, J.H.(1986). American Professors: A National Resource Imperiled.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Brown, D.G. (1968). The Mobile Professors. American Council on Education.
Caplow, T., & McCgee, R.J. (1958).

The Academic Marketplace. New York: Basic Book.

Central Council for Education (CCE) (2005). Future Vision of Higher Education in Japan (inJapanese), Tokyo: Central Educational Council.
CCE (2007). Toward Reconstruction of Undergraduate Education (intermediate report)(inJapanese). September 18, 2007.
Clark, B.R. (1983). Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross-National
Perspective. Berkley: University of California Press.

30
Clark, B.R. (1987). The Academic Life. Princeton: The Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching.
Clark, B.R. (1995). Places of Inquiry: Research and Advanced Education in the Modern
University. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Clark, B.R. (ed.) (1987). The Academic Profession. Berkley: University of California Press.
Clark, B.R. (ed.) (1993). The Research Foundations of Graduate Education: Germany, Britain,
France, United States, Japan. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cloete, N., Maassen, P., Fehnel, R., Moja, T., Gibbon, T., & Perold, H. (eds.) (2006).
Transformation in Higher Education: Global Pressures and Local Realities. Dordrecht:
Springer.
“Competition for gathering candidates is becoming bitter among the universities and colleges”(January 20, 2008) (in Japanese), The Yomiuri Newspaper, p.3.
Finkelstein, M., Seal, R., & Schuster, J.H. (1998). The New Academic Generation: A
Profession in Transformation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The
New Production of Knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporarysocieties. London: Thousand Oaks; and New Delhi: Sage.
Kosugi, R. (ed.) (2005). FREETER and NEET (in Japanese). Tokyo: Keiso Shobo PublishingCo.
Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press. (First Published in 1962).
Light, D.R. (1974). Introduction: The structure of the academic profession. Sociology of
Education, 47, 2-28.
Merton, R.K. (1973). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
MEXT (2006). Annual Report on the Promotion of Science and Technology, FY 2006. Tokyo:
MEXT.
NISTEP (2007). Research Report on World Top Class COE in the US (in Japanese). NISTEPREPORT No.102.
Nakayama, S. (ed.) (1984). Reconsideration of Paradigm (in Japanese). Tokyo: Minelva
Publishing Co.
Parry, S. (2007). Disciplines and Doctorates. Dordrecht: Springer.
Pierson, G.W. (1952). Yale College: An Educational History 1871-1921. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Rashdall, H. (1936). The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
RIHE (2006). Report of Changing Academic Profession Project Workshop on Quality,
Relevance, and Governance in the Changing Academia: International Perspective, COE31
Publication Series 20. Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.
Shils, E. (1979). Order of Learning in the United States. In A. Oleson and J. Voss (eds.), The
Organization of Knowledge in Modern America, 1860-1920. Baltimore and London: The
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Shinbori, M. (1965). Academic Marketplace in Japan (in Japanese). Tokyo: Toyokan
Publishing Co.
Shinbori, M. (ed.) (1984). A Comprehensive Study of Academic Profession (in Japanese).
Tokyo: Taga Publishing Co.
Shinbori, M. (ed.) (1985). Evaluation of Academic Achievement: Eponymy Phenomena in
Science (in Japanese). Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press.
Shinbori, M., & Arimoto, A. (1969). International Comparison of the Academic Career
Patterns (in Japanese). Sociological Review, 1(3), 2-21.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and theEntrepreneurial University. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
Sorlin, S., & Vessuri, H. (eds.) (2007). Knowledge Society vs. Knowledge Economy:
Knowledge, Power, and Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Teichler, U. (2003). Higher Education Reforms in Comparative Perspective. In RIHE (ed.),The End of Postwar Higher Education and the Perspective of “Japanese” Higher
Education, Proceedings of the 30th R.I.H.E Annual Study Meeting (Nov.8-9, 2002)(pp.1-30). Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.
Trow, M. (1973). Problems in the Transition from Elite to Mass Higher Education. Conference
on Future Structures of Post-Secondary Education, General Report, Policies for Higher
Education (pp.55-101). Paris: OECD.
University Council (1998). A Vision for Universities in the 21st Century and Reform Measures:
To Be Distinctive Universities in a Competitive Environment (in Japanese). Tokyo:
University Council.
Ushiogi, M. (1984). Birth of Kyoto Imperial University: A Scene of Imperial University
History (in Japanese). Nagoya: Nagoya University Press.
Yamanoi, A. (2007). Academic Market Place in Japan (in Japanese). Tokyo: Tamagawa
University Press.

33

The Context for the Changing Academic Profession:a survey of international indicators

William K. Cummings∗

The CAP project at its inception proposed a six stage conceptual framework
starting with the Drivers of Change and ending with Accomplishments andNational Development (described in the original concept paper as outputs andoutcomes).1 Figure 1 provides my tentative elaboration of the CAP model with
Drivers of Change listed in the left column and Outputs and Outcomes listed in
the right column. Each cell identifies a variable which may for a particularcountry in recent years be moving “in a positive or a negative” direction.
Explicit in the conceptual framework is a logic of causality from the left columns
to the right columns (though variables in a particular row do not necessarily
influence others in the same row). This particular elaboration will certainly be
modified as research progresses.
At the first Hiroshima meeting of 2006, it was proposed that the projectreview available international indicators of factors under consideration by the
project so as to complement the information obtained from the respective
national surveys. In this paper, I respond to that call. This exercise may be
useful for telling us what we already know and what we don’t know about therespective systems participating in the CAP project.

Scope of this Survey
In Figure 1, following several of the identified factors are notations (T1 to∗

Professor, Graduate School of Education and Human Development, George Washington
University, USA, e-mail: wkcum@usa.net
1
The concept paper placed special emphasis on factors related to the pressure for relevance,
the increasing penetration into academic work by non-academic managers, and theincreasing internationalization of academic appointments and activities.

34

Increase in Resources for
T6
Education-T5

Increase in Private andSocial Returns from
Participation in Higher
Education

Increase in Educational
Level of the Work Force

Increase in Salience ofHigher Education for Job
Preparation-C4

Increase in Higher
Education's Share of
National Economies

Accomplishments andNational Development

Increase in Collaborative
Research-D1

Increased Mobility within and
Across Boundaries-F13

Increase in Instructional
Accountability-C3

Increase in Use ofTechnology for Instruction
and Administration-C2

Decrease in Student
Preparedness-C4

Increase in Social andCommercial Relevance of
Research-D2

Increase in Scholarly
Productivity-T11,
T12,D4
T13, T14

Increase in Work Load (Nos.
of Students, Administrative Increase in Relevance ofTasks, Expectations forService
Service and Research)-B1

Figure 1. Dimensions of the Changing Academic Profession

Belief that Knowledge
Creation is a Mode of
Scholarship-B5
Belief that Knowledge
Increase in Private Sector's Increased Acceptance ofApplication is a Mode of
T12Interest in Higher Education International Students-T9
Scholarship-B7
Increased InternationaBelief that Collaboration is
Increase in Aggregate
lization of Academic Content Helpful for all Modes ofSupport for Research-T5a
T8
Scholarshipand Personnel-C5
Recognition that Certain
Belief that ScholarshipManagerial Reforms may
should be Allowed toEnhance the EffectivenessTranscend Organizationalof Higher Education andand National Boundaries
Research-E5

Levelling off of Government Continued Support ofSupport for Higher
Sciences and EngineeringT7
T11
Education-T10
T8

Belief that Knowledge
Increased Emphasis on the
Integration is a Mode ofSocial Sciences-T8
T11
Scholarship-B5

Population Growth or
Decline-T4
T5

Belief that Teaching is one
Mode of Scholarship andthat Technology May
Enhance Teaching-B5

Increased Stress on
Inclusiveness

ICT Revolution-T3
T4

Increase in Proportion ofBelief that Both Academic
Academics who Lack Job
Training and Experience
Enhance Scholarship-B5, C4 Security-A11

Increased Provision of
Graduate Education

Increase in International
Trade-T2

Increase in Private Sector's
Increase in Diversity of
Share of Higher Education Belief in Academic
Workplaces and Goals ofFreedom-E5
and Support for Academic
Each Place
Research
Increase/Decrease in Unit
Belief that Decisions
Increased Provision of Adult
Affecting Scholarship are the Costs with Corresponding
and Professional EducationPrerogative of the Academic Impact on RemunerationT6,T7
T9, T10
T10
Profession
T7

Shift to Service Economy
with High Tech
Manufacturing-T2, T2a
T3

Belief in the Value of Higher Increase in Size of the
Education for Most Citizens Academy

Expansion of Higher
Education-T6
T9

Economic Growth-T1

Nature/ Attractiveness of
Academic Work

Profession's Response to Beliefs about Academic
ChangeWork

Drivers of Change

34

35
T14, B1 to B7, C1 to C5, etc.). The Ts refer to the Tables I will be discussing
below where international indicators are available to portray national differences
and trends over time.2 The B’s, C’s, and so on refer to questions in the common
instrument from which data can be compiled in forthcoming research. It might
be noted that the international indicators largely focus on variables in the firsttwo stages of the CAP model whereas the data collected with the survey
instrument should help us understand later dimensions, especially Beliefs and the
Nature of Academic Work.
In presenting the available evidence on international indicators, I have twogoals: to identify 1) which systems and/or sub-systems are relatively affluent andacademically strong and which are weak; and 2) which systems are showing
improvement over the past 10-15 years and which are in at least temporary
decline. Relative position and recent trends are likely to influence the quality ofacademic life.

Methods
In approaching the international data, I have decided to focus only on thosecountries that are (or may be) participants in the CAP study – and not to attempt
to make comparisons with some world average; the available data has so manygaps that such an exercise would be deceiving. The CAP group is an interesting
set of countries – most of the so-called core societies of the international
hierarchy of higher education (i.e. the lead systems in North America andWestern Europe) are included, and there is a reasonable representation from mostother corners of the world except the Middle East and Africa.
As we all know there are many limitations to published data – somecountries do not report information, others report late, between countries there
are different interpretations of the definition of indicators, etc. So the insights I
present might better be described as guesstimates. On financial data we caneasily be misled unless adjustments for inflation and purchasing power are
introduced. Thus for the GDP figures, nominal values are adjusted to prices inthe year 2000. For per capita and per student indicators, adjustments are
introduced both for inflation (using 2000 prices) and for Purchasing Power Parity
2

Most of the indicators come from the World Bank’s database World Development Indicators
which is accessible from World Bank.org or other databases. The educational indicators
were cross-checked with information supplied by the database of UNESCO’s Institute of
Educational Statistics. The information on research productivity for Table 13 was takenfrom the National Science Board (2006).

36(PPP). A technique I will occasionally use is to compare national scores withthe sample average, highlighting countries that are at the extremes.

Economic Level and Recent Growth
The economic level of a country has a major bearing on the resources it can
allocate for education and higher education. One measure of economic level is
GDP per capita. With the exception of India and China, all of the CAP
countries are currently at least at the middle income level. Focusing on 1980,
there were wide disparities in per capita income. Japan’s was highest followed
very closely by that of Norway and the US.
Table 1. GDP per Capita in Selected Countries, 1980 and 2005

Country

GDP per capita

Average Annual(constant 2000 US$)

growth 1980-2005

1980

2005

Argentina

7550.758

8094.170.3%

Australia

14194.79

23039.43

2.0%

Austria

15,946.13

25346.01

1.9%

Brazil3256.017

3596.74

0.4%

Canada16598.325064.13

1.7%

China

186.4405

1448.777

8.5%

Hong Kong, China

11522.2

29944.97

3.9%

Czech Republic..

6628.413

Finland15566.13

25712.68

France15611.2323493.68

1.6%

Germany

15701.93

23905.59

1.7%

2.0%

India

223.2072

588.4418

4.0%

Italy

13094.12

19329.16

1.6%

Japan

23916.98

39075.31

2.0%

Malaysia1848.205

4436.816

3.6%

Mexico5114.1526172.016

0.8%

Netherlands

16436.26

24696.45

1.6%

Norway22257.1

39968.65

2.4%

Poland..

5203.089

Portugal

6300.754

11023.06..

2444.581

Russian Federation

2.3%

South Africa

3463.247

3405.865-0.1%

United Kingdom

15482.14

26890.73

2.2%

United States

22567.94

37267.33

2.0%

Venezuela

5820.012

4939.221

-0.7%

37
But looking at growth in per capita income over the last 25 years, China isoutstanding with an average annual growth rate of 8.5 %. India, Malaysia, andHong Kong are also high flyers. In contrast, most Eastern European and Latin
American countries have low to negative growth. A lack of economic growth islikely to slow the growth in funds available for education and higher education.

Economic Technological Context
Higher education can contribute to the vitality of all economic sectors,
though the demand for highly educated personnel is greater in the industrial andservice industries. In only two of the CAP countries are majorities of the labor
force employed in the primary sector – China and India – though in several
others agriculture continues to play an important role in the economy – Malaysia,
Australia, Mexico, Poland, and South Africa.
All of the CAP countries have expanding service sectors, usually with 50%
or more of the labor force there – Hong Kong, Argentina, Australia, Canada, theNetherlands, Norway, the UK, and the U.S. are notable. There is a tendency forjobs in the service sector to require personnel with training in the social sciences,whereas jobs in the industrial sector tend to require graduates from the sciencesand engineering.
Most of the CAP countries are significantly integrated into the global
economy. Between 1980 and 2005 the average across CAP countries of theannual value of exports as a percentage of GNP increased from 27.5% to 41.5%.
The average for imports as a percentage of GNP increased from 27% to 44%.
Honk Kong is most notable for its high level of integration in the global economy.
While the large economies of the U.S. and Japan are thought to be leaders inglobalization, their degree of participation as measured by the above two
indicators is relatively low.
One important vehicle for achieving prominence in the global economy is
the manufacture and sale of high-technology products, products that are based on
exceptionally high levels of research and development, such as computers andpharmaceuticals. Table 3 compares the CAP countries in terms of the total
value added by these high tech products as a percentage of all manufacturing
products. In terms of the total value added in both 1995 and 2003, the U.S. andJapan are the world leaders. As a percentage of all manufactured goods, Japan
has been stable across the eight year period whereas the U.S. position has
impressively increased. Finland, Malaysia, Brazil, Hong Kong and China alsoscore relatively high in terms of this indicator. The higher education

38
disciplinary emphasis in several of these countries is skewed to science andengineering (See Table 11 below).
Table 2. Employment by Sector and Percentage of GNP that is International,
1980 and 2005, for Selected Countries
Employment inagriculture(% of total
employment)

Employment inservices(% of total
employment)

Exports ofgoods andservices(% of GDP)

Imports of goods
and services(% of GDP)Country

1980

2005

1980

2005

1980

2005

1980

2005

Argentina

..

1.1

..

75.1

6.5

19.0

5.1

24.6

Australia

6.5

3.6

62.4

75

17.0

21.2

15.1

18.4

Austria

..

5.5

..

66.7

36.3

47.8

33.8

53.2

Brazil

..

..

..

57.9

11.3

12.4

9.1

16.8

Canada

5.4

2.7

66

75.3

26.5

34.4

28.3

38.6

China

68.7

..

11.7

..

11.1

31.9

10.7

37.5

Hong Kong, China

1.4

0.3

48.4

84.6

89.4

185.4

88.9

197.9

Czech Republic

12.5

4

39.1

56.5

..

69.8

..

71.7

Finland

13.3

4.8

52.2

69.4

32.8

35.2

31.3

38.7

France

8.7

..

55.4

71

23.1

27.1

21.0

26.1

Germany

..

2.4

..

67.8

25.0

35.1

20.0

40.1

India

..

..

..

..

9.5

24.2

6.3

20.5

Italy

14

4.2

48.7

65.1

23.7

26.4

21.0

26.3

Japan

10.4

4.4

54

66.4

14.6

11.4

13.7

13.4

Malaysia

37.2

..

38.7

71

54.3

99.9

56.7

123.4

Mexico

26

15.1

24.1

58.6

13.0

31.5

10.7

29.9

Germany Dem

Netherlands

..

3

..

72.9

54.0

63.0

53.2

71.2

Norway

8.3

3.3

62.3

75.9

36.9

28.1

43.1

45.3

Poland

..

17.4

..

53.4

..

37.3

..

37.0

Portugal

27.3

..

36.1

..

34.6

37.4

22.9

28.5

Russian Federation

..

10.2

..

60

21.6

..

35.1

South Africa

..

..

..

..

27.3

28.6

35.4

27.1

United Kingdom

2.6

1.4

58.9

76.3

24.9

30.0

27.1

26.1

United States

3.6

1.6

65.7

77.8

10.6

15.4

10.1

10.1

Venezuela

15

..

57.3

..

Average

21.8

21.3

28.8

41.0

27.5

41.5

26.9

43.9

39
Table 3. Amount (in 1997 U.S. Dollars) and Percentage of All Manufacturing
Sales that are High Technology, 1995 and 2003, for Selected Countries(Millions of 1997 U.S. dollars)
Industry and country/economy

1995

2003

All manufacturing industries
Total value added

5,225,595.8

12.1%

6,272,450.7

19.2%

United States

1,266,252.0

12.7%

1,495,278.0

34.2%

Canada101,711.2

10.3%

131,160.6

9.8%

Mexico63,945.4

9.3%

89,618.4

12.7%

Brazil153,966.9

18.8%

145,389.0

17.7%

Argentina

41,082.5

4.1%

42,640.6

5.1%

Austria

35,847.8

10.3%

50,467.5

8.4%

France232,859.3

13.5%

256,206.6

15.0%

Finland24,484.7

11.8%

34,539.1

29.0%

Germany

436,998.4

9.4%

465,117.8

11.7%

Italy

222,241.4

8.7%

223,993.1

9.0%

Netherlands

64,147.3

9.1%

65,469.4

6.6%

Portugal

16,877.8

7.0%

20,016.1

8.9%

United Kingdom

242,087.5

14.6%

252,454.3

16.3%

European Union-15

13.4%

1,512,202.0

11.2%

1,651,306.0

Czech Republic

17,022.0

5.1%

21,577.1

7.9%

Poland22,503.9

5.3%

35,433.3

6.4%

Japan

937,181.5

15.6%

923,507.7

15.7%

China

234,071.1

7.1%

590,609.8

19.0%

Hong Kong

10,241.7

22.7%

6,795.1

19.8%

India

56,509.8

4.3%

84,787.1

5.1%

Malaysia

22,529.7

26.7%

38,298.5

32.2%

South Africa

25,995.3

4.2%

28,159.6

3.3%

Associated with the high-tech revolution has been the spread of computers
and the development of the world-wide internet. Nearly all of the CAP
countries are making rapid strides to master the information revolution, though
there are wide differences: one indicator is the percentage of population using
broadband, which is highest in Norway and Finland and lowest in India.
Similarly there is wide variation in incidence of broadband subscribers with the
Netherlands and Honk Kong leading and India and South Africa trailing.
International data do not enable a close look at the relative strength of academic
offerings in fields related to these trends such as computer science andinformation management. But it is likely that in the country reports we willfind information technology issues to be most salient in those countries that havemost vigorously committed themselves to the internet.

40
Table 4. Selected Indicators of ICT Participation, 2005

Country and Year

Broadband subscribers(per 1,000 people)

Internet users(per 1,000 people)

Personal computers(per 1,000 people)

2005

2005

2004

Argentina

21.7

177.1

83.4

Australia

103.4

698.0

682.9

Austria

142.8

485.8

578.5

Brazil

17.7

195.0

105.2

Canada

207.6

520.1

699.9

China

28.7

85.1

40.9

Hong Kong, China

238.9

507.8

608.4

Czech Republic

43.7

269.5

240.0

Finland

223.8

533.7

481.1

France

155.5

429.6

495.7
545.3

Germany Dem
Germany

129.7

454.7

India

1.2

54.8

12.1

Italy

115.7

477.8

312.0

Japan

175.0

667.5

541.6

Malaysia

19.4

434.6

196.8

Mexico

22.4

180.6

109.8

Netherlands

251.2

739.0

682.4

Norway

214.4

735.4

572.7

Poland

32.6

262.0

192.8

Portugal

114.9

278.6

133.5

Russian Federation

11.1

152.3

104.3

South Africa

3.5

108.8

80.7

United Kingdom

163.8

473.5

599.8

United States

166.6

630.0

762.2

Venezuela

13.4

124.7

82.1

Demography
Population growth may influence the context of the academic profession.
Where the population growth rate is high, there will be relatively more young
people in the population and their numbers will tend to increase year after year.
For countries seeking to provide the incoming cohorts with equal opportunities,
there will be continuing pressure to expand higher education which leads to jobs
for new academics. As illustrated in Table 5, high growth countries include
India, Malaysia, Australia, Brazil, Argentina, and South Africa. In contrast are
several countries where population growth has been essentially stagnant or
negative in recent years – Poland, Russia, and the Czech Republic.

41
Table 5. Aggregate Population and Percent of Population that are Immigrants,
1980 and 2005, for Selected Countries
Population, total
Country

1980

Average Annual
Growth Rate
1980-2005

2005

Internationalmigration stock(% of population)
1980

2005

Argentina

28,093,513.00

38,747,148.00

1.3

6.8

3.9

Australia

14,692,000.00

20,329,000.00

1.3

21.0

20.2

Austria

7,553,000.00

8,233,300.00

.3

3.7

15.0

Brazil

121,615,033.00

186,404,913.00

1.7

1.0

0.3

Canada24,593,000.00

32,299,000.00

1.1

15.5

18.9

China

981,235,000.00 1,304,500,000.00

1.1

0.0

0.0

Hong Kong, China

5,063,100.00

6,943,600.00

1.3

41.5

43.2

Czech Republic

10,232,000.00

10,234,092.00

0.6

..

4.4

Finland4,780,000.00

5,246,100.00

.4

0.8

3.0

France53,880,000.00

60,873,000.00

.5

10.9

10.6

Germany

78,303,000.00

82,469,400.00

.2

..

12.3

India

687,332,000.00 1,094,583,000.00

1.9

1.3

0.5

Italy

56,434,000.00

58,607,050.00

.2

2.0

4.3

Japan

116,782,000.00

127,774,000.00

.4

0.6

1.6

Malaysia

13,763,441.00

25,347,368.00

2.5

5.7

6.5

Mexico67,570,000.00

103,089,132.60

1.7

0.4

0.6

Netherlands

14,150,000.00

16,319,850.00

.6

3.5

10.0

Norway4,091,000.00

4,623,300.00

.5

3.1

7.4

Poland35,578,000.00

38,165,450.00

.3

4.3

1.8

Portugal

9,766,000.00

10,549,450.00

.3

2.7

7.2

Russian Federation

139,010,000.00

143,113,650.00

.1

..

8.4

South Africa

27,576,000.00

46,888,200.00

2.1

3.6

2.4

United Kingdom

56,330,000.00

60,226,500.00

.3

6.2

9.0

United States

227,225,000.00

296,410,404.00

1.1

6.3

12.9

Venezuela

15,091,222.00

26,577,000.00

2.3

6.4

3.8

1.3

2.0

Average

International migrations can play a modest role in population growth. The
major beneficiaries of international immigration tend to be among the more
affluent countries – notably Hong Kong, Australia, and Canada.
Population growth influences the relative size of the college age cohort,which is the major source of clients for the higher educational enterprise.
Countries with rapid total growth have ever expanding college age cohorts andthus face a great challenge in creating enough new places in higher education to42
accommodate the expanding college cohort; thus countries with rapid population
growth are less likely to realize increases in their higher education Gross
Enrollment Ratios (Tertiary GER). China has contained numerical population
growth, so its participation rate has experienced a sharp increase in recent years(Table 9 below) while India with rapid population growth has experienced aslower rate of growth in tertiary GER.

Resources for Education
Information on the finance of education appears to be somewhat less reliable
or consistent than that on the issues discussed above. From the available
evidence, it would appear that across CAP countries the average proportion of
GNP devoted to public education has been about 5% for the last 25 years withconsiderable variation between countries. Finland, Norway, and Malaysia
currently have higher levels and Argentina, India, Japan, Romania, and Russia
appear to be low. In the cases of Japan and India, these relatively low levels of
public support are partially compensated by high levels of private support.
Overall the level of support for education in most countries has been
relatively stable. Countries that have enjoyed more favorable economic growth
have been somewhat more likely to increase their public allocations foreducation. Hong Kong (and probably China) and Malaysia are examples ofcountries that have significantly increased their public allocations for education
while in several other countries there appears to have been some slippage in the
public support of education.
Expenditure per student on education as a percentage of per capita income
is one indicator of the relative affordability for the state (or, if tuition is charged,
for the student) of a particular level of education. Comparing expenditures per
primary education student as a percentage of per capita income, the norm is15-20% without wide differences between countries or over time. In contrast
there are wide differences in the expenditures for tertiary education students as aproportion of per capita income. The norm is circa 30% or about twice asmuch as for primary education. In Latin America the average is closer to 60%.
And in Hong Kong, India, Malaysia, and Norway the ratio is even higher. If
per student costs are relatively high, this implies revenues for higher educationthat can be used in any of a number of ways – higher expenses on infrastructure
including new technologies, higher management costs, higher faculty salaries,
higher scholarship support for students. A close examination of each national
context would be required to clarify which among these options is emphasized.

43
Table 6. Support for Public Education as a Percentage of GNP and Other
Indicators of Level of Support for Education (i.e. Private Sector
Share in 2002 and Educational Expenses as a Proportion of percapita income) for Selected Years.
(%)

Country/YEAR

Public exp
onEdn/ GNP
95

Public exp
onEdn/ GNP
2002

Private exp
on
Edn/GNP2002

Argentina

4.5

Australia

5.6

4.4

1.2

Austria

5.5

5.4

0.3

BrazilCanada

7.3

China

2.3

4.2

Public exp 1ary Edn exp
as % GNPon
per capita
Edn/ GNP
2004
2005

3ary Edn exp
as % GNP
per capita
2005

3.8

11.4

11.7

4.7

16.4

23.2

5.5

22.7

48.9

4.4

14.1

35.9

0.2

...

...

...

...

Czech Republic

6.1

4.2

0.2

4.4

12.9

30.6

Finland

7.6

5.9

0.1

6.5

18.8

36.6

France

5.9

5.7

0.4

5.9

17.9

34.1

Germany

4.7

4.4

0.9

Hong Kong

2.8

German Dem Rep
4.6

16.4

...

4.6

15.3

68.5

India

3.5

3.4

1.4

3.8

9.4

94.7

Italy

4.9

4.6

0.3

0.9

...

13.3

Japan

3.8

3.5

1.2

3.6

22.4

20.5

Malaysia

5.3

8.1

0.0

6.2

14.6

71.1

Mexico

5.3

5.1

1.1

5.4

14.9

41.3

Netherlands

5.3

4.6

0.5

5.4

18.8

42.6

Norway

8.3

6.7

0.3

7.7

20.7

53.2

Poland

4.6

5.5

0.7

5.4

22.8

21.5

Portugal

5.4

5.7

0.1

5.7

24.6

24.9

Romania

3.2

3.4

...

22.9

Russian Federation

4.1

South Africa

6.8

United Kingdom

5.5

5.0

United States

5.3

5.3

4.5

Venezuela

5.2

Average

5.2

3.7

0.0

3.6

...

10.8

5.3

13.3

45.5

0.9

5.4

18.0

27.7

1.9

5.9

22.0

27.6

0.6

4.9

17.4

36.7

44
Table 7. Change in Tertiary Education Expense per Student, 1995 to 2002, for
Selected Countries

Country/YEAR

Tertiary perStudent PPP$
2002

Argentina

3235

Australia

12416

Tertiary
Changein exp95-02

Tertiary
Tertiary
Tertiary %of GNP Change in no. Change in exp
per studentof students
per capita
95-02
95-02
2005
11.7

122

23.2

131

93

Austria

12448

111

48.9

94

118

Brazil

10361

125

35.9

142

88

CanadaChina
Czech Republic

6236

118

30.6

170

69

Finland

11768

118

36.6

113

104

34.1

France9276

114

Germany

10999

110

97

117

100

110

2486

204

94.7

136

150

Italy

8636

Japan

11716

131

13.3

108

121

120

20.5

102

118

Malaysia
Mexico

14405

360

71.1

238

151

6074

172

41.3

142

121

Hong Kong
India

68.5

Netherlands

13101

110

42.6

107

103

Norway

13719

110

53.2

104

105

Poland

4834

166

21.5

197

84

Portugal

6960

135

24.9

132

102

118

100

131

109

Romania

22.9

Russian Federation

10.8

South Africa

45.5

United Kingdom

11822

United States

20545

118

27.6

Venezuela
Average

27.7

36.7
10055

144

Resources for Higher Education
Among CAP countries, expenditure per student (figures adjusted for PPP,
inflation) is highest in the US3 and is lowest in India (China also is certainly low,3

While Switzerland is not a CAP country, it can be noted that its average expenditure per
student is higher than the U.S. amount.

45
but published data are not available). Of course, the US is an affluent country
so its high actual expenditure per student is a relatively low percentage of its
GNP per capita (only 27.6%); in contrast, India’s average expense per student is94.7 % of its GNP per capita.
With the PPP adjustments entered, the gap between countries is not as great
as is often thought: e.g. $21,000 in the US compared to $3,500 in India.
Perhaps most surprising is the sizeable gap between the US and the typical
European country (at circa $12,000), especially considering that several of theEuropean systems pay for student tuition.
The trend in expenditures per student deserves note; where there is apositive trend this implies the greater availability of resources which could leadto an improvement in the academic context. Malaysia shows a sharp increase as
do several of the less affluent countries including India, Mexico, and Poland.
Among the more affluent countries, expenditures per student are slightly down in
the UK while slightly up in Austria and France.

R&D Expenditures
As economies develop and come to place greater stress on higher
technologies, countries tend to spend larger amounts on research anddevelopment, and moderate proportions of these funds are likely to be allocatedto academic centers. Thus, as indicated in Table 8 the more mature economiesof the north tend to spend 2% or more of their gross national product on R&D;
Finland stands out with an expenditure of 3.46% of its GDP followed by the U.S.
with 2.67%. An interesting trend is that most Asian societies to spend a higher
amount on R&D than might be expected by their level of economic development.
Japan, for example, spends a higher proportion than the U.S. and, while Korea is
not included in the CAP study, its expenditures are also very high. Mexico andRomania have low levels of expenditure on R&D.
A nation’s R&D expenses come from a variety of sources and are devoted tomany activities. University based projects tend to focus on more basic researchand thus seek funding appropriate to these goals. Table 8 suggests thatcountries with lower development levels tend to spend a relatively highproportion of their research funds on basic research (e.g., Mexico, Poland) –though China runs contrary to this generalization. Of course, we should keep inmind that the overall R&D expenditures of these nations are small, so it turns outthat the funds available to the typical academic tends to be quite modest. As
economies develop, there is a tendency to expand funding for applied and46
developmental projects at a faster rate than for basic research projects. Even so,
most advanced nations devote sizeable amounts of funding to basic research, andthis practice does not appear to be abating.
Table 8. R&D Share of GDP for Selected Countries/Economies circa 1996
and 2002
Country/YEAR

R&D % share of
GDP circa 1996

R&D % share of
GDP circa 2002

Basic Researchshare of R&D

Argentina

0.38

0.41

26

Australia

1.68

1.54

26

Austria

1.52

2.19

Brazil.76

1.04

Canada

1.60

1.87

China

0.65

1.22

6

Czech Republic

1.19

1.34

25

Finland

2.78

3.46

France2.23

2.26

Germany

2.31

2.5

Hong Kong

0.10

23

India
Italy

1.08

1.11

Japan

2.92

3.12

13

Malaysia

0.34

Mexico

0.42

0.39

31

Netherlands

2.09

1.88

Norway1.68

1.67

Poland0.76

0.59

Portugal

0.65

Romania

32

0.94
0.38

Russian Federation

0.95

South Africa

0.69

1.28

United Kingdom

1.87

1.87

United States

2.60

2.67

Venezuela

0.89

14

18

Participation in Higher Education
The proportion of the college age cohort actually enrolled (Tertiary GER) is
often used as an indicator of the relative attractiveness of a nation’s higher
educational system. The US and Canada were leaders in tertiary GER in 1980,
but they now are surpassed by Finland and Norway among the CAP countries aswell as others (S. Korea).

47
Table 9. Trends in Tertiary Enrollments for Selected Countries/Economies

Country/YEAR

Total
Tertiary
Students
1980

Total Enrollment
GrowthTertiary
1980 toStudents
2005
2005

Argentina

4914732127113Australia

3237161015060

313.6%

25

72

65

72

Austria

136774244410178.7%

26

45

56

50

Brazil432.8%

4275027

Tertiary
GER
1980

Tertiary
GER
1995

Tertiary
GER
2000

Tertiary
GER
2005

22

38

53

65

11

11

16

24

Canada4219131254833

297.4%

57

103

59

62

China

1161440

21335646

1837.0%

2

5

8

20

Czech Republic

197041336307

170.7%

18

21

29

48

Finland123165305996248.4%

32

67

83

92

53

56

France8697882187383251.5%

25

50

Germany

12232212179967

178.2%

34

43

Hong Kong

38153

152294399.2%

104456198

11777296

264.3%

5

6

10

11

Italy

11177422014998

180.3%

27

41

49

66

Japan

24121174038302167.4%

31

40

47

55

Malaysia

57650

7310771268.1%

4

11

26

32

Mexico7854192384858

303.6%

14

14

19

24

Netherlands

360033564983156.9%

29

49

53

61

Norway79211

213940270.1%

26

55

70

80

18

27

49

63

India

Poland211808131

Portugal

91373

380937416.9%

11

34

48

56

Romania

192769738806383.3%

12

18

24

45

Russian Federation

5235200

9019556

172.3%

46

14

15

South Africa
United Kingdom

735073832106

United States
Venezuela

2287541274.9%

17272044
307133104978043
17341.8%

71

19

48

58

60

56

81

69

83

21

29

28

41

India, South Africa, and China have the lowest tertiary GERs. But these
are countries with large populations, so their actual enrollment totals are
relatively large; in fact, while China’s GER in 2005 was only 20%, its total
enrollment in 2005 exceeded that of the U.S. by over 4 million students.
UNESCO has for some time made a distinction between ISED Levels 5a and5b and Level 6 institutions. The former levels includes junior colleges andspecialized programs that may or may not lead to a baccalaureate; the latter are
institutions that offer both first degrees and advanced degrees and are often

48
referred to as full universities. Countries that have higher GER rates tend tohave a larger proportion of their tertiary enrollments in these morecomprehensive institutions. Table 10, while reporting data for only a fraction of
the CAP sample, suggests that expenditures per student in the full universities are
generally higher than for the ISED 5a institutions.
Table 10.

Percentage of all Students in Tertiary Education Who Attend
Short-Cycle Programs (ISED 5a), and Comparison of Student Unit
Costs for ISED 5a with 5b/6

Country/YEAR% of Students in
ISED 5A 2005

Argentina

74

Australia

80

3ary exp per
Student in
ISCED5A
PPP$ 2002

3ary exp per
Student in
ISCED5B&6
PPP$ 2002

3891

2777

Austria

84

7544

13410

Brazil

93

9584

12701

Canada

73

China

51

Czech Republic

83

2703

6671

Finland

92

3185

11833

France

72

9801

9132

5739

11860

German Dem Rep
Germany
Hong Kong

53

India

98

7429

8649

Italy

97

9580

11984

10769

15276

7622

13163

Japan

74

Malaysia

54

Mexico96

Netherlands

98

Norway97

Poland97

Portugal96

Romania

91

Russian Federation

78

South Africa

73

United Kingdom

73

United States

77

Venezuela

64

987

49

Academic Field
Higher education provides relatively specialized training in bodies ofknowledge and skills often referred to as fields. UNESCO aggregates thesefields into eight broad groups: Education, Humanities, Social Sciences, Sciences,
Engineering, Agriculture, Health, and Other. Table 11 presents data on student
enrollments in three of these aggregate groups for 1980 and 2005. The
distribution of staff in higher educational institutions tends to mirror the
distribution of students.
Table 11.

Percentage Distribution of Students between the Social Sciences andScience and Engineering 1980 and 2005 for Selected Countries

Country

Soc Sci
1980

Science
1980

Eng.
1980

Soc Sci
2005

Science
2005

Eng.
2005

Argentina

17.8%

7.9%

15.3%

39.2%

10.4%

8.5%

Australia

29.0%

12.9%

7.0%

37.8%

11.6%

10.6%

Austria

20.4%

9.3%

7.1%

35.9%

12.0%

12.1%

40.6%

8.4%

7.5%

26.3%

3.7%

1.3%

26.7%

10.0%

10.2%

China

3.2%

8.2%

31.3%

Czech

14.7%

3.2%

37.8%

28.1%

9.5%

19.7%

Finland

24.6%

10.7%

24.6%

22.3%

11.6%

26.4%

France

9.1%

15.0%

0.0%

German demo

16.8%

2.4%

20.5%

German fed

19.6%

11.2%

15.0%

28.7%

13.9%

16.4%

Hong Kong

30.6%

10.2%

40.8%

35.3%

15.2%

16.1%

India

14.4%

17.4%

7.5%

14.8%

15.6%

6.5%

Italy

16.8%

9.7%

8.1%

36.7%

7.7%

15.9%

Japan

32.7%

2.5%

16.5%

28.7%

2.9%

16.6%

Malaysia

112.0%

15.4%

12.7%

27.0%

18.5%

21.4%

Mexico

29.4%

3.7%

20.7%

40.3%

13.0%

18.3%

Netherlands

19.6%

3.9%

14.7%

39.8%

7.6%

7.9%

Norway

18.2%

7.0%

13.7%

32.2%

9.4%

6.9%

39.9%

8.3%

11.0%

17.2%

31.4%

7.6%

21.8%

57.0%

47.1%

4.7%

20.3%

26.9%

14.2%

8.1%

27.3%

8.9%

6.7%

33.6%

10.5%

13.6%

BrazilCanadaPolandPortugal

18.3%

5.6%

Romania

11.4%

4.4%

Russia-Ussr
United Kingdom

45.6%
25.1%

16.4%

19.1%

United States
Venezuela

22.0%

13.6%

1.9%

Average

23.1%

8.4%

18.9%

50
Comparing across societies, the former socialist and some Asian societies
place a greater emphasis on the sciences and especially the applied sciences as dohigh tech societies such as Finland. This tendency is evident both in 1980 and
2005. Over the 1980 to 2005 period, the main trend in field choice is anincrease in the social sciences and a decrease in most other fields. The data are
not adequately detailed to indicate which social science fields are responsible forthis increase, but it is likely that an increased interest in business management ispart of the explanation. As noted earlier, most CAP societies have experienced
a significant expansion of employment in the service industries.
Table 12.

Ratio of inbound “International Students” and outboundStudents to the Total Student Population of Selected Countries,
2000 and 2005
Inbound % of
Total Students
2000

Inbound % of
Total Students
2005

Outbound % of
Total Students
2000

Outbound % of
Total Students
2005

Australia

13.0

20.0

1.0

1.0

Austria

11.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

Brazil

0.0

0.0

1.0

1.0

Canada

9.0

9.0

China

1.0

Czech Republic

2.0

FinlandFranceCountry
Argentina

2.0

3.0

2.0

2.0

6.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

2.0

7.0

11.0

3.0

2.0

2.0

3.0

Germany
Hong Kong

2.0

3.0

India
Italy

1.0

2.0

23.0
1.0

1.0

3.0

2.0

Japan

1.0

3.0

2.0

2.0

Malaysia

3.0

4.0

7.0

6.0

1.0

1.0

Netherlands

3.0

5.0

3.0

2.0

Norway

5.0

6.0

8.0

6.0

MexicoPoland

0.0

0.0

1.0

1.0

Portugal

3.0

4.0

3.0

3.0

Romania

3.0

1.0

3.0

3.0

Russian Federation

1.0

1.0

South Africa

7.0

7.0

1.0

1.0

United Kingdom

11.0

14.0

1.0

1.0

United States

4.0

3.0

Venezuela

0.0

0.0

1.0

1.0

Average

4.0

4.9

2.6

3.2

51

International Out-bound versus In-boundOne component of the changing student body is the increasing prominenceof young people born in one country who take up study in another. These
internationally mobile students can be looked at from the country they leave as
out-bound students; alternately they can be looked at from the country where
they take up their studies as in-bound students. The CAP project is interested in
the mobility of students in the anticipation that it can provide some insights into
the mobility of academics.
Concerning students, the inbound rate in most countries has increased, while
the outbound rate is relatively stable. The average inbound rate in 2005 was
4.9% with Australia, the UK, France, and Canada having especially high inboundrates. These are also societies with high percentages of immigrants in theiroverall population mix.
Western countries tend to think they are inundated with high numbers of
inbound students from India and China. But these are very large societies, andtheir outbound rates are comparatively low. Moreover, in both case theirinbound rates are as high as their outbound rates. In other words China andIndia take as many students as they give.
Concerning outbound rates, the average in 2005 was 3.2 %. Hong Kong,
Norway, Malaysia, and Austria stand out with relatively high rates.

R&D Output
Most nations believe in the importance of research including basic research.
At the same time they seek evidence that their financial allocations for researchlead to worthy outcomes. One indicator of the impact and vitality of basic
research activities is the frequency with which researchers complete and publish
their findings as articles in internationally refereed journals. In recent years as
indicated in Table 13, US researchers have published the largest number ofarticles with Japan second followed by several of the Western European countries.
But if we look at trends over time, the historic Western dominance in research
publications appears to be facing a challenge from Asia. The Asia regional total
has increased 46% between 1995 and 2001 or 119% between 1988 and 2001; therespective figures for Western Europe are 15% and 59% and for North America
they are a surprisingly flat at -1% and 13%. Japan is currently number two interms of total publications and China is number five. Two notable exceptions in
the Western group are Finland with 23% and 83% and Austria with 30% and102% for the two time periods. Russia has experienced a dramatic decline.

52
Table 13.

Science & Engineering articles, by region and country/economy:
1988–2001 and Ratios of Change for 2001/1998 and 2001/1995

Region and country/economy

1988

1995

2001

Worldwide

466,419580,809649,795

OECD

2001/1988

2001/1995

1.39

1.12

386,267

487,111532,756

1.38

1.09

199,937

229,320

226,704

1.13

0.99

Canada21,391

24,532

22,6261.06

0.92

Mexico

884

1,901

3,209

3.63

1.69

North America

United States

177,662

202,887

200,870

1.13

0.99

Western Europe

143,882

199,688229,173

1.59

1.15

Austria

2,241

3,477

4,526

2.02

1.30

Finland

2,789

4,134

5,098

1.83

1.23

France21,40929,30931,317

1.46

1.07

Germany

29,292

38,10043,623

1.49

1.14

Italy

11,22917,904

22,313

1.99

1.25

Netherlands

8,581

12,33012,602

1.47

1.02

Norway

2,192

2,953

3,252

1.48

1.10

Portugal

429

989

2,142

4.99

2.17

36,50945,99347,6601.31

1.04

51,76578,055

113,575

2.19

1.46

China

4,619

9,261

20,978

4.54

2.27

India

8,882

9,591

11,076

1.25

1.15

Japan

34,43547,60357,420

1.67

1.21

Malaysia

208

373

494

2.38

1.32

United Kingdom
Asia41,59736,39033,6860.81

0.93

Czech Republic

2,746

1,993

2,622

0.95

1.32

Poland

4,030

4,535

5,686

1.41

1.25

Romania

393

648

997

2.54

1.54

Russiana

19,974

15,846

USSR

31,625nana

Eastern Europe/Central Asia

0.79

Near East/North Africa

7,893

9,627

11,777

1.49

1.22

Pacific

12,054

15,922

17,743

1.47

1.11

9,896

13,387

14,788

1.49

1.10

4,748

7,646

13,1472.77

1.72

Australia
Central/South America
Argentina

1,423

1,969

2,930

2.06

1.49

Brazil

1,766

3,471

7,205

4.08

2.08

292

430

535

1.83

1.24

Sub-Saharan Africa

Venezuela

4,544

4,161

3,990

0.88

0.96

South Africa

2,523

2,364

2,327

0.92

0.98

53
These large differences in recent trends need to be considered alongside thedifferent starting points. After all, the actual article totals in several of theWestern countries are quite substantial. One possible way of taking account ofthese differences would be to relate article total to researcher total acrosscountries. But there is not adequate information for that purpose, so anotheroption is to relate national article totals to total size of the national population aspresented in Table 14. What stands out from this computation is that several of
the advanced countries have achieved over 700 articles per one million capita
while the level of productivity in several of the less affluent countries including
India and China is well below 100. Especially notable is the high productivityof Finland, the Netherlands, and Australia with the U.S. in fourth position.
Japan, by this indicator, lags behind all of the affluent European countries
excepting Italy.
Table 14.

Per capita Output of Science & Engineering
Articles 1999-2001 for Selected Countries
Country

Per capita Output of S&E
Articles, 1999-2001

Argentina

77.8

Australia

794.2

Austria
Brazil38.8

CanadaChina

14.8

Czech Republic

241.4

Finland960.5

France538.6

Germany

530.5

India

10.8

Italy

371.4

Japan

445.6

Malaysia

21.9

Mexico31.8

Netherlands

800.5

Norway720.0

Poland139.9

Portugal

191.3

Russian Federation

116.4

South Africa
United Kingdom

821.9

United States

722.2

Venezuela

54

Summing Up
In this brief paper, I have presented data on several international indicatorsin an effort to examine some of the components of the CAP analytical framework.
There are obvious limitations to this effort: The data are sometimes of dubious
quality, there is much missing data, it would be helpful to have more complete
time series, and it would be helpful to have indicators for a greater variety ofissues. Still, some conclusions emerge from this review.
Our review observes that the US still has the most affluent higher
educational system, and it also has an academically strong system, but relatively
speaking it is losing ground. It is interesting that Switzerland has passed the US
in terms of expenditure per student, and several countries have passed the U.S. interms of tertiary GER and selected R&D indicators. The Scandinavian
countries are showing steady improvement in various areas: their higher
educations systems are now very close to the US in terms of affluence and very
competitive in terms of academic productivity. The East Asian systems show
the greatest relative improvement. And the East European countries areexperiencing the most negative trends. The other countries tend to lie inbetween these extremes.
It is often asserted that there is a world hierarchy in higher education with
the U.S. and Western Europe at the core (Ben-David, 1977; Altbach, 2002;
Marginson, 2004); the world hierarchy perspective assumes that the talent,
financial resources, knowledge resources, and working conditions aremonopolized by the Atlantic community systems. Is this hierarchy still
prominent, can we say it has flattened somewhat (Freidman, 2005), or is it evenpossible that a new hierarchy is forming with new players taking over the center(Cummings, 2008)? A flatter world perspective would argue that the Western
hierarchy is being challenged by an increasingly differentiated distribution of
those factors that favor academic excellence and relevance. Thus a newhierarchical perspective proposes that new centers are emerging (especially in
Asia and in the Nordic countries) that may be outpacing the historical academiccore in at least some dimensions of academic excellence.
Of course, there are many limitations to this analysis. The indicators wehave reviewed focus on the traditional concerns of higher education research –that is on teaching and basic research. They provide relatively little insight into
the CAP themes of relevance and managerialism, and only a few hints reinternationalization.

55

Findings Relevant to the Conceptual Framework from thisAnalysis of International Indicators
Inspired by the CAP conceptual framework, the following are a selection ofworking hypotheses that seem to be supported by the available international
indicators.
• More affluent countries have higher participation rates in higher
education, and a greater proportion of their tertiary places are in theupper tier (ISCED 5b and 6) institutions.
• While countries with higher population growth rates add more student
places and hence more faculty positions, their participation rates may
not increase as rapidly as countries with lower population growth rates.
• Countries with a strong information technology emphasis place a
relatively greater stress on science and engineering.
• Countries with a strong service emphasis place relatively more stress on
the social sciences.
• Countries vary in their public (and private) support for education overall
and in their support for higher education• More affluent countries provide a higher level of support for higher
education.
• Countries vary in their relative rates of increase in student numbers
versus financial support per student.
• More affluent countries provide a higher level of support for basic
research• Countries that spend more on basic research are scientifically moreproductive.
• More affluent countries have higher inbound student rates• Countries with a high proportion of immigrants in the population havehigher inbound student rates• Countries where higher education has a greater emphasis on science andtechnology have higher inbound student rates• Rapid increases in student numbers lead to the rapid creation ofacademic jobs
• Increases in revenues per student lead to better conditions for academics• Increases in basic R&D funding lead to better conditions for academics

56

References
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: The
academic profession in developing and middle-income countries (pp. 1-22). Chestnut Hill,
Massachusetts: Center for International Higher Education, Boston College.
Ben-David, J. (1977). Centers of Learning: Britain, France, Germany and the United States.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cummings, W.K. (2008). Is the Academic Center Shifting to Asia? In D. Chapman, W.K.
Cummings, and G.A. Postiglione (eds.), Border Crossing in East Asian Higher Education.
Springer Press and the Comparative Education Research Centre of the University of Hong
Kong (in press).
Friedman, T.L. (2005). The World is Flat. New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux.
Marginson, S. (2004). National and Global Competition in Higher Education: Towards a
Synthesis (Theoretical Reflections). Proceedings of ASHE Annual Meetings, Kansas City,
Missouri, Nov. 22-24, 2004.
National Science Board (2006). Science and Engineering Indicators. Washington: U.S.
Government Printing Office.

Country Reports

North America

57

The Changing Academic Profession in Canada:
exploring themes of relevance, internationalization,and management

Amy Scott Metcalfe∗

Introduction
The study of faculty and the academic profession are central research topics
in the field of higher education. In Canada, higher education institutions havecome to occupy a pivotal location within the framework of an emerging
knowledge economy (Fisher & Rubenson, 1998; Godin & Gingras, 2000; Jones,
McCarney & Skolnik, 2005; Metcalfe, 2006). Faculty, particularly scientists,are considered “highly qualified personnel” in various public policies relating to
Canada’s role as an innovative and knowledge-centric society (Langford, Hall,
Josty, Matos & Jacobson, 2006). This shift means that federal and provincial
governments have devised a wide array of policy instruments through which
they seek to shape the research and knowledge production capabilities of higher
education institutions in an effort to boost Canada’s location within the global
economy. Internationally, Canadian institutions compete to attract skilledresearchers and scholars to enhance Canada’s position within global knowledge
production flows (Luke, 2005). At the intersection of these two processes,
Canadian higher education institutions have been radically transformed in termsof their structural differentiation and their relationships to the broader labour
market.
However, due to declining public resources dedicated to collecting data on
academic staff in Canada, few national-level surveys exist that might permit us∗

Assistant Professor, Higher Education, Department of Educational Studies, Faculty of
Education, University of British Columbia, Canada, e-mail: amy.metcalfe@ubc.ca

58
to better understand the changes facing the academic profession. Statistics
Canada, the public entity charged with data collection in Canada, has not
maintained the Part-time University and College Academic Staff Survey(PT-UCASS), which was active from 1990-1997. In addition, the Annual
College and Related Institutions Educational Staff Survey (ACCESS) has been
inactive since 2004, with its last survey conducted in 1999. As such, scholars
and policy-makers have relied on the Labour Force Survey to better understandfaculty employment in Canada, but this survey does not provide an adequate
annual ‘snapshot’ of academic staff. The only national-level survey on the
topic of academic staff that has been maintained is the University and College
Academic Staff Survey (UCASS), which is an annual, institutionally-oriented
survey of full-time faculty employed in Canadian universities. The data arereported with about a two-year time lag in the Almanac of Post-Secondary
Education in Canada, published annually by the Canadian Association of
University Teachers (CAUT).
Unlike the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF) in the UnitedStates and related surveys in other countries, the UCASS in Canada does notsurvey individual faculty. Rather, universities report to Statistics Canada
various information relating to faculty employees, such as salaries, disciplinary
affiliations, academic rank, appointment type, and demographics (i.e., age,gender, citizenship status, and ethno-cultural background).
Due to an
opportunity to participate in the Changing Academic Profession (CAP) initiative,
a Canadian research team was formed in 2006 to conduct a large-scale datacollection effort to complement the UCASS and national data on academic staff
in Canada, which are scant for the reasons mentioned above. The CAP project
aims to revisit some of the themes explored by the First International Survey ofthe Academic Profession, conducted in 1992 by the Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching, which involved 14 countries (see Altbach, 1996).
For reasons unknown to the present research team, Canada was left out of theCarnegie study. Thus, although the Canadian CAP project has not resulted in adata set that can be compared with the 1992 Carnegie survey, it has provided an
opportunity to assess the changing academic profession in Canada and provide
much-needed data on academic staff.
The international CAP survey has been organized around the themes of
relevance, internationalization, and management in academia (Locke & Teichler,
2007; RIHE, 2006). This paper focuses on these three major facets of theacademic profession as they relate to Canada, by utilizing preliminary data fromthe CAP study. First, I discuss the relevance of academic work for Canadian

59
faculty at the personal, institutional, and social levels. Second, I examine theinternationalization of Canadian higher education in terms of in-country or
foreign degree attainment by Canadian faculty, the internationalization ofteaching, and international dimensions of research. Third, I report findings
relating to academic management and faculty work. The paper thus examines
faculty responses to the changing profession, internationalization, and academic
managerialism.

Background
Higher education in Canada is constitutionally a provincial responsibility,
meaning that jurisdiction for the governance of post-secondary education resides
with the ten provincial governments (Shanahan & Jones, 2007). Federal
discretion over higher education is limited, but is mostly felt through oversightof some student loans through the Millennium Scholarship Foundation andthrough the provision of research funding via the research councils and theCanada Foundation for Innovation (Fisher, Rubenson, Bernatchez, Clift, Jones,
Lee, MacIvor, Meredith, Shanahan & Trottier, 2007). In Canada, there is nofederal-level Ministry for post-secondary education, nor is there federal
legislation to guide the structures of the provincial systems. As such, the ten
provincial systems in Canada are distinct and vary widely from region to region.
This is not to say that tensions do not exist between the federal and provincial
responsibilities toward higher education, as national economic competitivenessand Science & Technology policy are federal concerns. Rather, as Canada’s
economy has become more knowledge-centric, higher education has beenviewed as a national resource due to its present and potential research capacities(Cameron, 2001).
Although system diversity is a hallmark of Canadian higher education, it
can be said that Canadian higher education is generally characterized bydegree-granting universities (mostly public but some private) and colleges thatoffer sub-baccalaureate education. Exceptions have emerged, such as theuniversity-colleges in British Columbia (Chan, 2005; Levin, 2003) and collegesthat offer the baccalaureate degree (Levin, 2004). The 2007 Almanac of
Post-Secondary Education in Canada (CAUT, 2007, p.15) lists 71 universities
that have reported descriptive data on academic staff summarized frominformation collected by Statistics Canada’s Centre for Education Statistics.
From this source, we learn that there were approximately 34,000 faculty
employed full-time in these 71 institutions in the academic year 2004-2005.

60

MethodInstrument
The CAP common instrument was developed in consultation with ourinternational partners.
The core questions pertain to the professional
background of faculty, academic socialization, perceptions of work conditions,income, institutional support, professional and research activities, perceptions ofinstitutional culture and policies, as well as career and mobility aspirations.
The core questionnaire draws from the First International Survey of the
Academic Profession (Altbach, 1996), with new and revised questions. In
addition, each national survey has been slightly modified by each country-based
team to account for regional differences in nomenclature and other aspects thatwould affect local comprehension. For example, the Canadian survey wasdeveloped in both French and English, as these are the official national
languages. Survey participants had the option to take the survey in either
language.
Following the CAP meeting in Kassel, Germany in summer 2006, theCanadian team met in Vancouver to finalize the additional questionnaire items,
construct the sample, and prepare the survey (including a professional translation
into Québécois French). At this time, we also completed the ethical review
process through our Research Ethics Board at the University of British Columbia
and were granted approval. Due to limited resources available for the project,
the decision was made to offer the survey online, with an email invitation topotential participants to avoid costs associated with printing and mailing paperquestionnaires.
Analytic Goals
The international CAP group decided on a minimum “effective” net sample
size of 800 returned questionnaires (with most items answered). The CAP
project group has agreed to focus on “personnel providing academic teaching
and/or research at universities (public and private) and public funded research
institutes”.
National Context
In Canada, there are three main types of higher education institutions:institutes, colleges and universities. Although most universities in Canada are
public, we did not exclude private universities from the sample. As the CAP
project focus is on universities, we did not include colleges or institutes in the61sample, although they would be ideal for a follow-up survey in the future.
University-colleges, an emerging institutional type in Canada, were also notincluded as they were inconsistently named and categorized due to theirtransitioning character. Theological institutions and seminaries were also notincluded. Although mentioned in the CAP design strategy, research institutes
were not included as there is no reliable list of these organizations in Canada nor
is there an available list of individual researchers who work within them.
Data Sources
Four sources of information about universities and academic staff in Canada
have been used to create our national CAP sample. First, the Canadian
Association of University Teachers (CAUT) produces an annual Almanac of
Post-secondary Education, which summarizes institutional data collected by
Statistics Canada. In the section of the 2007 Almanac on “Academic Staff”,
Table 2.12 presents a list of 71 institutions and the number of full-time university
teachers in each (CAUT, 2007, p.15). Second, the Commonwealth Universities
Yearbook 2007 provides a list of full-time academic staff employed at 37
Canadian member institutions of the Association of Commonwealth Universities(ACU, 2007). Third, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada(AUCC) lists online the names of its 92 member institutions for 2007. Finally,
Maclean’s magazine publishes an annual university rankings issue, which
categorizes Canada’s universities into three strata: Medical/Doctoral,Comprehensive, and Primarily Undergraduate.
Population
Universities that were members of the AUCC or the ACU and that were
included in the CAUT table were included in the initial list of Canadian
institutions for the purposes of this study. When university-colleges, colleges,
and institutes were excluded, the AUCC and CAUT lists were nearly identical,
with most also listed in the ACU’s Commonwealth Universities Yearbook. The
population list for the Canadian CAP study included 50 universities. As this is
not a complete list of all universities in Canada (mostly due to the transitioningof university-colleges to universities, the inclusion of theological and technicalinstitutions in the CAUT and AUCC lists, and the fact that some private
universities are not members of AUCC), we were not able to utilize a simple
random sample design.

62
Sampling
A two-stage cluster sample was thus created at the level of institutions andat the level of individuals. At the institutional level, the target population ofuniversities was sorted by province and by type of institution. Provincial
location is significant for the Canadian context, as post-secondary education is aprovincial responsibility.
Furthermore, regionalism correlates withFrancophone and Anglophone language groups, which it is important are
adequately represented in the final sample. In addition, due to the differences
between research-intensive institutions and those that are mostly concerned withteaching, the Maclean’s categories provided a method for ensuring representation
by institutional type. However, it was felt that since the real differences were
between the larger research-oriented institutions and the rest of the university
sector, the three categories were collapsed into two: Medical/Doctoral andComprehensive/Primarily Undergraduate.
From this list, a random sample of institutions was created. First, in eachprovincial category, one Medical/Doctoral institution was randomly selected.
For the provinces of Ontario and Québec, two Medical/Doctoral institutions wereselected to account for the large number of institutions in those areas. One
province, Prince Edward Island, did not have a Medical/Doctoral institution.
Next, one Comprehensive/Primarily Undergraduate institution was randomly
selected for each province where possible, with two selected for Ontario due tothe large size of its institutional population. Thus, the institutional sample
consisted of 20 institutions, 11 Medical/Doctoral and 9 Comprehensive/Primarily
Undergraduate. Each of Canada’s 10 provinces was represented by at least one
institution.
With the first-stage cluster sample in place, the CAUT and ACU lists wereused to create a list of individuals within these institutions for the second-stageof the cluster sample. According to the CAUT’s Almanac of Post-secondary
Education 2007, the cluster sample of institutions employed 14,043 full-time
university faculty in 2004-2005, the most recent year for which data wereavailable at the time of constructing the sample.
Of the 20 universities in the Provincial/Type cluster sample, seven were notincluded in the Commonwealth Universities Yearbook 2007. Three of these
universities are Francophone institutions. Although using only ACU members
would have been easier due to the faculty lists provided in the Yearbook, it wasconsidered essential to include faculty from the Francophone universities in thesample. In addition, the Yearbook listings for departments and units at the
sampled institutions were not complete, necessitating a strategy that would

63
supplement the data obtained through the ACU. Therefore, a list of faculty forthe seven institutions that are not ACU members and those units not included in
the Yearbook at the other sampled institutions was created by going to theinstitutional websites and collecting names, titles, and email addresses forfaculty members in each academic unit. The CAP gross sample size was thus a
combination of the ACU lists and data mining from public sources.
For each of the 20 universities in the sample, full-time faculty with the titlesof Professor, Associate Professor, and Assistant Professor (and the Francophoneequivalents) were included in the individual-level cluster sample. Other
academic staff with titles such as Instructor, Lecturer, Research Associate, orClinical Faculty were not included in the CAP gross sample. Administrative
faculty such as Deans and Vice-Presidents were not included.
Design Effect and Expected Response Rate
Following the advice of the CAP Sampling Design, we elected to use a
Design Effect of 2. While we hoped for a 33% response rate as suggested by
the CAP Sampling Design, but since we had opted to use an online survey, we
expected that a lower response rate might be likely. A recent survey ofCanadian academics had a 27% response rate, for example (Catano, Francis,
Haines, Kirpalani, Shannon, Stringer & Lozanski, 2007). After a review of theliterature on academic surveys and response rates for web-based questionnaires,
we concluded that a 25% response rate was likely. To ensure that our grosssample size was sufficient for an effective sample size of 800 with a Design
Effect of 2, we performed the following calculation:
Gross sample size = effective sample size × Deff × (1/expected response rate)
Gross sample size = 800 × 2 × (1/0.25) = 6,400
Although we would only need to survey 6,400 individuals according to thedesign effect and the expected response rate, we had no way to determine a
representative random sample from our gross sample. Because we were
working with public data, we had no demographic information available to us at
the level of the individual beyond employing institution, department, and job
title. Although this could have ensured a representative group on thoseparameters, it would not permit us to sample by gender, age, race/ethnicity, or
citizenship/immigration status, each of which is relevant to academic
employment policy and faculty governance in Canada. As we were working
with an electronic survey, we decided to send an e-mail invitation to all64
individuals in the gross sample (i.e., individuals meeting the job classification
criteria who also met the criteria of being employed at the randomly selected
universities meeting the strata distribution criteria).
These individuals(N=7,807) were either listed in the Yearbook 2007 where their employing
institution was included in that year, or their names and email addresses werecollected through data-mining efforts from public websites. With a sample of
7,807 individuals, a 20-21% response rate would be necessary to achieve theeffective sample size of 800 with a design effect of 2.
Gross sample size = 800 × 2 × (1/0.20494) = 7,807
Implementation
At the end of October 2007, all potential e-mail recipients were sent abilingual invitation message, followed by two reminder messages in November
and December. Participant anonymity was assured through the use of a
Personal Identification Number (PIN) and a third-party research service at the
University of British Columbia that administered the survey and housed the data
onsite.
Results
Approximately 16% (i.e., 1,236) of the contacted eligible participants fromthe 20 sampled universities responded to the survey by mid-December 2007.
Due to incomplete responses and a failure to reach the 20% minimum
response-rate target for the Canadian CAP study design, another wave of e-mailreminder notices will be sent in the Spring of 2008. Although preliminary innature, for the purposes of an initial analysis we selected a representative
sub-sample from the completed responses gathered to date to generate apreliminary dataset. This sub-sample will not be the final Canadian CAP dataset, but it is useful to provide an overview of the responses at this stage. This
sub-sample of 844 individuals closely mirrors the demographic characteristics offull-time university faculty in Canada, as shown in Table 1.
The sub-sample includes faculty from Doctoral/Medical, Comprehensive,
and Primarily Undergraduate universities in nearly the same ratio as the
Canadian university population. Female faculty, however, were somewhat
over-represented in the sub-sample at 43% when compared to the actual
percentage of female faculty in the population (33%).
Ethno-cultural
background and citizenship/immigration status of the respondents in the sample
were close to those of faculty in the general Canadian university population.

65
Table 1. Demographics of FT University Faculty

Doctoral/Medical & Comprehensive
Primarily Undergraduate
Male
FemaleWhite
Visible Minority/Non-White
Canadian-born/citizen at birth
Immigrants and non-permanent residents*Source: CAUT Almanac, 2007**Most recent data available are from 2001.

CAP
Sub-sample
N=844
84%
16%
57%
43%
86%
14%
66%
34%

FT Faculty in
Canada*
85%
15%
67%
33%
87%
13%
60%**
40%**

Findings
In this section, a selection of findings is presented and organizedthematically into sections titled Relevance, Internationalization, andManagement.
Relevance
In the context of the CAP survey, the relevance of the academic profession
has several contexts and connotations. As noted by Brennan, Locke, andNaidoo (2007), “The point about ‘relevance’ is that it is generally defined byother people” (p.169). However, the CAP survey does not ask “other people”
about the academic profession; it is focused on the individual academic. Thus,
I present here responses to various questionnaire items relating to theparticipants’ level of individual satisfaction with the academic profession, theirperceptions about how influential they are in their institutions at various levels,and their involvement in external civic activities. In this way, I have considered‘relevance’ in terms of job satisfaction at the individual level, perception of
influence at the institutional level, and activity in the civic arena at the level ofsociety. A summary of these responses is presented in Table 2.

66
Table 2. Relevance
How would you rate youroverall satisfaction with yourcurrent job?

Very High

High

MediumLow

Very Low

25%

48%

17%

7%

3%

How influential are you,
Very
Somewhat A little
Not at all Not
personally, in helping shape key
influential influential influential influential applicableacademic policies?
At the level of thedepartment or similar unit

19%

42%

26%

10%

3%

At the level of the Faculty,
School or similar unit

6%

24%

34%

31%

5%

At the institutional level

2%

11%

27%

54%

6%

During the current academic
year, have you done any of thefollowing?
Been substantially involved
in local, national orinternational politics

7%

Been a member of acommunity organization or
participated incommunity-based projects

41%

Worked with local, national
or international social
service agencies

16%

In North America, the academic profession is experiencing a series ofchanges, especially in terms of contracts and appointment types (Finkelstein,
Galaz-Fontes & Metcalfe, forthcoming). In Canada, a recent survey has foundthat academic staff are “stressed to a high degree” resulting in health problems
and loss of productivity (Catano et al., 2007). In this context, however, theCanadian CAP survey respondents reported a high level of satisfaction with theircurrent job, with 25% reporting “very high” satisfaction and 48% reporting“high” satisfaction. While no national-level faculty satisfaction surveys havebeen conducted in Canada, discipline-specific surveys such as the Adult
Education and Human Resource Development Faculty Survey conducted byPeterson and Wiesenberg (2004) also reports high levels of job satisfaction from
Canadian faculty.
In terms of perceived influence in shaping academic policies, the Canadian

67
CAP participants see themselves as having the greatest influence at the
departmental level, with least influence at the institutional level. Although thedegree to which individual faculty are involved in university level
decision-making increases with advancements in rank, thereby making a portionof the sample less likely to be involved at that level as a condition of theiremployment status, these results may also be indicative of a decline infaculty-driven governance at the institutional level (Jones, Shanahan & Goyan,2004).
At the level of civic engagement, while few respondents reported being
substantially involved in local, national, or international politics (7%), a higher
proportion (41%) indicated that they had recently been a member of acommunity organization or participated in community-based projects. In
addition, about one in seven faculty (14%) reported that they had worked withlocal, national or international social service agencies within the current
academic year. These data may be useful in relation to our understanding of
faculty engagement and participation in civil society (O’Connor, 2006), as well
as a way to understand the social relevance of the academic profession outsideacademia.
Internationalization
The CAP survey contains several questions that pertain to the theme ofinternationalization in higher education. In this section I include a selection ofthese items, focusing on the in-country or foreign degree attainment of Canadianfaculty, internationalization in teaching, and internationalization in research.
The domestic or foreign credentials of academic staff can be considered as
an indicator of internationalization, as it both speaks to the relative quality and/or
prestige of a given country’s doctoral programs in a global educational
marketplace and the value of international perspectives within the academic
profession. Faculty participants in the Canadian CAP survey had most often
earned their first degree (e.g., a bachelor’s) within Canada, as well as theirsecond degree (e.g., a master’s). In each case 72% of respondents had earned
these degrees in Canada (Table 3). With this in mind, the high number of those
who have earned their doctoral degree outside Canada is something to consider
more closely. Fifty-two percent of faculty who reported earning a doctoral
degree indicated that they earned it in the country of their current employment(Canada), meaning that 48% of doctoral recipients had not. For those who
earned their doctoral degree outside Canada, the United States was the mostfrequently cited country of degree attainment.

68
Table 3. Internationalization
Degree attainment in CanadaFirst degree (e.g., bachelor's)
Second degree (e.g., master's)Doctoral degree (e.g., PhD, EdD, JD)
Postdoctoral degree

72%
72%
52%
52%

Beyond degree attainment, internationalization is evident in the large
percentage of Canadian faculty who consider international perspectives in theirteaching and research (Table 4). When asked about their teaching, a majorityof respondents (63%) indicated that they either strongly agreed or agreed withthe statement, “In your courses you emphasize international perspectives orcontent”.1 A slight majority of respondents (53%) indicated that the “numberof international students has increased” since they started teaching, but the
majority (62%) disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement, “Currently,
most of your graduate students are international”.
Table 4. Internationalization in teaching
Strongly
Agreeor AgreeIn your courses you emphasize international
perspectives or content
Since you started teaching, the number of international
students has increased
Currently, most of your graduate students areinternational

During the current (or previous) academic year, are
you teaching any courses abroad?

NeitherAgreenor disagree

Strongly
Disagreeor Disagree

63%

21%

16%

53%

29%

18%

22%

15%

62%

Yes

No

16%

84%

Yes

No

66%

34%

59%

14%

Internationalization in research

Do you collaborate with international colleagues?
How would you characterize the emphasis of yourprimary research this (or the previous) academic year?
International in scope or orientation

1

27%

While this question was posed with a five-point scale, they are reported here in the following
three groups: Strongly Agree or Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, and Strongly Disagree orDisagree.

69
With regard to internationalization in research, two-thirds of the Canadian
CAP respondents answered “yes” to the question, “Do you collaborate withinternational colleagues?” In addition, 59% of them indicated that they would
characterize the emphasis of their primary research in this (or the previous)
academic year as “international in scope or orientation”. The degree ofinternationalization is pertinent to the Canadian higher education context, as thishas been a stated focus of a recent (2006) institutional survey conducted by the
Association of Universities and Colleges in Canada (AUCC). Preliminary
results from that survey indicate that internationalization is rapidly occurring on
Canadian campuses (AUCC, 2007).
Management
The theme of management is clearly related to an entire section of the CAP
common survey instrument, with six complex questions that cover various
aspects of academic governance and workplace climate. For the purposes ofthis paper, I have chosen to report the findings of one of these questions, as it
encompasses a broad range of topics relating to academic management (Table 5).
Table 5. Management

At my institution there is…
a strong emphasis on the institution's
missiongood communication between management
and academics
a top-down management stylecollegiality in decision-making processes
a strong performance orientation
a cumbersome administrative process
a supportive attitude of administrative staff
towards teaching activities
a supportive attitude of administrative staff
towards research activities
professional development foradministrative/management duties forindividual faculty

Strongly
Agreeor AgreeStrongly
Neither
DisagreeAgreenor Disagree or Disagree

54%

27%

19%

29%

32%

39%

52%
38%
52%
65%

27%
34%
29%
24%

21%
28%
19%
11%

46%

27%

27%

48%

22%

29%

31%

34%

34%

The item begins with the introductory statement “At my institution there
is…” and was followed by nine completion statements that focused on
institutional mission, communication, collegiality, performance orientation,
administrative support, and professional development opportunities. Tellingly,

70
65% of survey participants indicated that they strongly agreed or agreed that “acumbersome administrative process” existed at their institutions. This item
drew the strongest response within this question. A majority of survey
participants (52%) also indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed that at their
universities there is a “top-down management style”. However, despite thebureaucracy and managerialism that these responses seem to indicate ascharacteristics of Canadian universities, respondents generally agreed that a
supportive attitude of administrative staff existed toward both teaching activities
and research activities.

Discussion and Conclusion
In this paper I have presented a brief overview of the Canadian CAP survey
and a few preliminary responses that relate to the project themes of relevance,internationalization, and management. In terms of relevance, the early
Canadian CAP survey results indicate that in general Canadian faculty aresatisfied with their current jobs, perceive they exert the most influence at the
department level in their institutions, and participate in external activities such as
work with community organizations. While relevance of the academic
profession is often reduced to being measured by performance criteria, the CAP
data may suggest other ways in which the significance of faculty labour can beassessed. Variations within and between the national surveys with regard to
civic engagement may, for example, help us to understand the conditions bywhich academics are best supported to do this type of work and how it can befurther linked with research and teaching.
The theme of internationalization is woven throughout the CAP survey
instrument, and by the very fact that the CAP is an international comparative
study, the theme will be likely well-expressed in the national data sets andanalyses. In Canada, internationalization of the curriculum is being widelyadopted by institutions and individual faculty (Schuerholz-Lehr, Caws, Van Gyn& Preece, 2007). The transnational character of the Canadian professoriate,with 40% being immigrants to Canada (CAUT, 2007), also plays a part ininternationalization. The majority of participants in the Canadian CAP survey
indicated that they both incorporate international content in their teaching andcollaborate with international colleagues. Furthermore, a large percentage of
the Canadian CAP respondents said their primary research is international inscope or orientation. As the analysis of the CAP data progresses, it will beinteresting to see if immigration status, citizenship, country of degree attainment,

71
gender and other demographic variables bear any relationship to international
research collaboration or the incorporation of international themes in teaching.
Finally, items relating to academic management were highlighted in the
CAP survey, some of which are mentioned in this paper. Of particular note for
Canada is the high number of respondents who see their institutions as having a
cumbersome administrative process and a top-down management style. As
stated by Jones (2006), the changing nature of academic work is at least in part
related to “the massification of higher education, the repositioning of higher
education in terms of economic development, and the shifting relationshipbetween the university and the state” (p.317-318), all aspects beyond the control
of individual faculty. Although the CAP survey does not attempt to measurethese external factors, their effects are likely to be evident in the lives ofacademics and therefore in the CAP data. The findings from the Canadiansurvey and that of the CAP partners may provide academics with the informationnecessary for more effective collective bargaining, enhanced professional
association activities, and greater participation in academic governance.

Acknowledgment
Support for the Canadian CAP project has been provided by the Centre for
Policy Studies in Higher Education and Training (CHET) at the University of
British Columbia. Special thanks are due to UBC graduate student and Centre
participant Iain Snee for his help in preparing the data for this paper. Gratitude
is also extended to the rest of the Canadian CAP team: Donald Fisher, Kjell
Rubenson, Yves Gingras, and Glen Jones. We are also grateful for the work ofAndré Mazawi on this project in 2006-2007.

References
ACU (2007). Commonwealth Universities Yearbook, 2007. London: Association ofCommonwealth Universities.
Altbach, P.G. (ed.) (1996). The international academic profession. Portraits of fourteen
countries. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
AUCC (2007). Internationalization survey. Ottawa: Association of Universities and Collegesof Canada. Accessed from http://www.aucc.ca/policy/research/international/survey_2007_e.html.
Brennan, J., Locke, W., & Naidoo, R. (2007). United Kingdom: An increasingly differentiated72
profession. In W. Locke & U. Teichler (eds.), The changing conditions for academic workand careers in select countries (pp.163-176). Werkstattberichte 66. Kassel, Germany:International Centre for Higher Education Research – Kassel.
Cameron, D.M. (2001). Postsecondary education and Canadian federalism: Or how to predict
the future. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 31(3), 143-155.
CAUT (2007). 2007 Almanac of post-secondary education in Canada. Ottawa: CAUT
Publications.
Catano, V., Francis, L., Haines, T., Kirpalani, H., Shannon, H., Stringer, B., & Lozanski, L.
(2007). Occupational stress among Canadian university academic staff. Ottawa:
Canadian

Associationof

University

Teachers.

Accessed

onlineat

http://www.caut.ca/pages.asp?page=605.
Chan, A.S. (2005). Policy discourses and changing practice: Diversity and theuniversity-college. Higher Education, 50(1), 129-157.
Fisher, D., & Rubenson, K. (1998). The changing political economy: The private and public
lives of Canadian universities. In J. Currie & J. Newson (eds.), Universities andglobalization. Critical perspectives (pp. 77-99). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Fisher, D., Rubenson, K., Bernatchez, J., Clift, R., Jones, G., Lee, J., MacIvor, M., Meredith, J.,
Shanahan, T., & Trottier, C. (2007). Canadian federal policy and postsecondary
education. Vancouver: Centre for Policy Studies in Higher Education and Training.
Finkelstein, M., Galaz-Fontes, J., & Metcalfe, A.S. (Forthcoming). Changing employment
relationships in North America: Academic work in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. In J.
Enders & E. de Weert (eds.), Modernization processes and the academic profession.
London: Palgrave.
Godin, B. & Gingras, Y. (2000). The place of universities in the system of knowledge
production. Research Policy, 29, 273-278.
Jones, G.A. (2006). The restructuring of academic work: Themes and observations. Higher
Education in Europe, 31(3), 317-325.
Jones, G.A., McCarney, P.L., Skolnik, M.L. (eds.), (2005). Creating knowledge, strengthening
nations: The changing role of higher education. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Jones, G.A., Shanahan, T., & Goyan, P. (2004). The academic senate and university
governance in Canada. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 34(2), 35-68.
Langford, C.H., Hall, J., Josty, P., Matos, S., & Jacobson, A. (2006). Indicators and outcomesof Canadian university research: Proxies becoming goals? Research Policy, 35(10),1586-1598.
Levin, J.S. (2003). Organizational paradigm shift and the university colleges of British
Columbia. Higher Education, 46(4), 447-467.
Levin, J.S. (2004). The community college as a baccalaureate-granting institution. The Review
of Higher Education, 28(1), 1-22.

73
Locke, W., & Teichler, U. (eds.) (2007). The changing conditions for academic work andcareers in select countries. Werkstattberichte 66. Kassel, Germany: International Centre
for Higher Education Research—Kassel.
Luke, C. (2005). Capital and knowledge flows: Global higher education markets. Asia Pacific
Journal of Education, 25(2), 159-174.
Metcalfe, A.S. (ed.) (2006). Knowledge management and higher education: A critical analysis.
Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
O’Connor, J.S. (2006). Civic engagement in higher education. Change, 38(5), 52-58.
Peterson, S.L., & Wiesenberg, F. (2004). Professional fulfillment and satisfaction of US andCanadian adult education and human resource development faculty. International
Journal of Lifelong Education, 23(2), 159-178.
RIHE (2006). Reports of Changing Academic Profession project workshop on quality,
relevance, and governance in the changing academia: International perspectives. 21stCentury COE Program: Construction and Quality Assurance of 21st Century Higher
Education System. COE Publication series, 20(September). Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima
University.
Schuerholz-Lehr, S., Caws, C., Van Gyn, G., & Preece, A. (2007). Internationalizing the higher
education curriculum: An emerging model for transforming faculty perspectives. The
Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 37(1), 67-94.
Shanahan, T., & Jones, G.A. (2007). Shifting roles and approaches: Government coordinationof post-secondary education in Canada, 1995-2006. Higher Education Research &Development, 26(1), 31-43.

75

The Changing Academic Profession in the UnitedStates: 2007

Martin Finkelstein* and William Cummings**

Introduction
The first International Survey of the Academic Profession in 14 countries
was completed in 1992-3 under the leadership of Ernest Boyer and Philip
Altbach at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. That
survey constituted something of a milestone in the development of the field ofcomparative higher education: it resulted in two volumes subsequently publishedby the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, and hundreds ofjournal articles and policy papers across the globe (e.g., Altbach ed., 1996;
Altbach & Lewis, 1995; Boyer et al., 1994; Lewis & Altbach, 1996) – at a time
when many governments worldwide were restructuring their national systems toaccommodate vastly expanded access (massification). In the intervening
fifteen years, of course, the whole ball game has changed, what with
globalization, the Internet, privatization and the forging of a new and more
intimate connection between university research and the knowledge-based
economy, the restructuring of faculty roles, as well as academic work and careers(see most recently, Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006). Several senior colleagues
who participated in the 1992-3 survey, including Ulrich Teichler at Kassel
University, Jurgen Enders at the University of Twente, and Akira Arimoto at
Hiroshima University, organized a group of 22 countries committed to carryingout a follow-up 2007 survey entitled “The Changing Academic Profession”[CAP].
*

Professor, College of Education and Human Services, Seton Hall University, USA,e-mail: finkelma@shu.edu**
Professor, Graduate School of Education and Human Development, George Washington
University, USA, e-mail: wkcum@usa.net

76
A ten member executive committee (representing researchers in Japan,
China, Mexico, India, Germany, United Kingdom, and the U.S.) met three times
over the past two years in order to design a common sampling protocol acrosscountries as well as a common survey instrument – to ensure genuine
comparability of the findings across countries. The sampling protocol iscomplicated by the fact that in some countries (e.g., Japan), there is an easily
accessible government listing of all full-time faculty in universities from which arandom sample can be readily drawn. In others, such as the U.S., there is nosuch list and we need to engage in a two-stage process of sampling institutions
and then, within institutions, sample faculty so as to ensure that important
subgroups, e.g., minority scientists, are adequately represented. The protocol
does however set standards across countries for minimizing sampling error andassuring over-sampling of critical subgroups.
The CAP survey instrument focuses on three overarching themes –relevance, internationalization and managerialism – identified in a jointly
authored Concept Paper that provided the overall intellectual framework for the
research. Relevance, broadly conceived, refers to increasing pressures globallyfor higher education to visibly support economic competitiveness as well associal progress. Internationalization refers to the increasing permeability ofnational boundaries and the increasing mobility of students and faculty acrossborders. Managerialism refers to changes in governance that have increased
the role of administrators and government entities at the expense of faculty.
Most generally, the instrument seeks to chart changes in the pressuresexperienced by faculty and the responses to those pressures reflected in theirwork behavior and career trajectories. The instrument is organized to permit
the analysis of trends over time in three ways: (1) there are several items that
replicate those in the 1992-3 survey allowing for straightforward historicalcomparisons between the two surveys; (2) there are a few items that ask
respondents to assess current conditions as compared to those when they began
their career, i.e. indicators of perceived change; and (3) a comparison of the
responses of faculty in different academic generations, i.e. whose entry into an
academic career occurred at different point of historical time.
This paper provides a first cut of the results of the U.S. survey conducted in
the Fall of 2007. The results are presented around the three aspects of assessingchange described above.

77

Population and Sample
The highly decentralized American system includes some 655,000 facultyon full-time appointment at nearly 4,000 corporately independent institutions
that on the one hand vary in their size and degree level: from large universities
offering doctoral level education to small colleges focusing on baccalaureatelevel education; and on the other hand on their control – whether governed andfunded by public entities or private entities such as churches. After having
stratified the institutional picture according to these two characteristics,
size/degree level and control, we then randomly selected a total of 80 institutions
across these four strata1 and secured their faculty lists. Then, after having
established the proportion of full-time faculty in the population of each of thefour institutional strata so defined, we then randomly selected faculty withineach institutional stratum so as to approximate in our sample to their proportionsin the population. This approach yielded a total sample of 5,772 faculty at 80
4-year colleges and universities across the United States.
The U.S. team contracted the Research Services Division of SPSS
Corporation (the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) to program and hostthe on-line American English version of the CAP survey. All sections anditems required for the international data set were included, although the order ofthe six sections of the survey was modified to avoid asking uninspiring career
resume and demographic questions at the beginning.
In addition, in
collaboration with Canada and Mexico, several ‘North American’ questions wereadded including race/ethnicity, geographic region of North America, and detailsof research collaborations specific to the three countries. The on-line survey
was ‘programmed’ in order to require that respondents answer questions on agiven screen before proceeding to the next screen. Moreover, the programming
also specified acceptable ranges of value for responses (you could not reportyour first academic appointment as 1970 and receipt of your baccalaureate
degree in 2007). This approach served to infuriate a few respondents but, moregenerally, to reduce missing data and data incongruities. The survey link withan individually coded identifier was e-mailed to all 5,772 faculty on October 3,
2007. A total of five reminders were sent out electronically between October
15 and December 7, 2007.
1

We had originally planned to select 100 institutions to include 20 research institutes.
Insofar as the research institute sample was abandoned, we were then left with a total
institutional sample of 80 colleges and universities.

78

Results
SampleOf the e-mailed invitations to the U.S. faculty sample of 5,772, 707‘bounced’ back largely as a function of being ‘spammed’ by the internal
university e-mail systems. Of the 5,065 that actually made their way into
faculty inboxes, completed responses were received from 1,048 respondents fora response rate of 20.7%. Up to an additional 50 respondents answered morethan 80% of the survey and were included where appropriate in this analysis foran effective response rate of 21.7%. While such a response rate would
typically be viewed as quite low for a paper survey, the literature suggests that
response rates for on-line surveys in the Unites States tend to be considerably
lower than for paper surveys, and in the range of 10-30%. Moreover, as a resultof increased annoyance with ‘spam’ and increased concerns about privacy andidentity theft on the Internet, these on-line response rates have been declining
over time. Our rate falls squarely within the acceptable range for on-line
surveys.2
Table 1. Faculty Sample and Respondents by Institutional TypeInstitution TypeN

SampleRespondents

Total

PublicPrivate

N

%

Total

%

Research Universities

29

21

8

2718

47.1%

463

44.2%

Other 4-year

51

26

25

3054

52.9%

585

55.8%

Doctor granting

11

6

5

1014

17.6%

319

30.4%

Master offering

28

17

11

1440

24.9%

233

22.2%

Baccalaureate

12

3

9

600

10.4%

33

3.2%

All

80

47

33

5772

100.0%

1048

100.0%

Table 1 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 four-year institutions. Among other four-year
institutions however, faculty at doctoral granting universities tend to be
overrepresented among respondents (30.4% versus 17.6% in the sample) andfaculty at baccalaureate colleges tend to be underrepresented among respondents(3.1% versus 10.4% in the faculty sample). Faculty at public institutions areslightly overrepresented among respondents (67.1%) compared to the sample
2

We are nonetheless planning a follow-up paper version of the survey which will be mailed toa one-half random sample of about 2,000 of the non-respondents to the on-line survey in
February, 2008.

79(62.4%); and faculty in the private sector slightly underrepresented among
respondents (32.9%) compared to the faculty sample (37.6%). While notreported here, we are developing a weighting scheme that will allow us withsome confidence to estimate population parameters.
Findings: Generational Change
Table 2 below shows a breakdown of basic faculty demographics (gender,
race/ethnicity, nativity, marital/family status), appointment type, role orientation(teaching versus research), perceptions of the condition of higher education byacademic generation or career stage. When we speak of academic generationor career stage, we are simply distinguishing here between the recent cohort offaculty, hired since 2000 (whom we shall refer to as new entrants) and thosemore seasoned faculty who entered the profession before 2000 (whom we shallrefer to as senior faculty). Most of the latter are likely to have received tenure(or to have moved on). As this is ground Finkelstein has covered before in
earlier Hiroshima presentations (Finkelstein, 2006), we will be brief.
The data in Table 2 sketch a portrait of modest change (or continuity) in thecomplexion of the American academic generations, in all but three respects.
First, new entrants to the academic profession in the United States are
increasingly women. At the entry level, women have achieved near parity intheir representation (47% of new entrants). Moreover, this trend will almost
certainly continue as a reflection of increasing parity (or even majority status insome academic fields) in graduate school enrollment and doctoral degrees
awarded between men and women. Second is the matter of appointment type:new entrants are much more likely than their senior colleagues to be employedon fixed-term contracts (about one-third compared to about one-sixth among
more senior faculty). Finally, new entrants differ from their senior colleagues
in their perception of working conditions: they are more likely than their seniorcolleagues to perceive relative stability in academic working conditions (during
their relatively short careers); and less likely to perceive deterioration in working
conditions than their senior colleagues.
Despite public attention in the U.S. to the increasing performance pressures
on faculty, especially new faculty and especially in the research arena, newentrants report nearly equal measures of job satisfaction to their seniorcolleagues – and indeed report no greater orientation to research than their seniorcolleagues. It should be noted that our analysis, by virtue of its temporalparameters (focusing on those hired post-2000), may underestimate the scale ofchange in the new academic generation. Earlier, Finkelstein et al. (1998)

80
reported more radical shifts among the cohort of new entrants hired in the 1990s.
It seems likely that much of the radical change may have already occurred adecade earlier and is now decelerating as the 1990s cohort of new entrants
becomes absorbed into senior ranks.
Table 2. Faculty Characteristics by Academic Generation (N=1048), 2007
Faculty Characteristics
F1

New
Entrants%

SeniorFaculty%

GenderMale
Female

152
135

53%
47%

455
306

60%
40%

F14

Race/Ethnicity

White/Caucasian

233

81%

637

84%

F9

Foreign Born?

Born in US
Not in US

235
52

82%
18%

634
127

83%
17%

F5

Is your spouse an
academic?

Yes
No

65
108

38%
62%

210
247

46%
54%

Type of Appointment

Tenured/Tenure-track
Fixed-term

197
90

69%
31%

630
131

83%
17%

68

24%

160

21%

89

31%

264

35%

99

34%

262

34%

B6

Job satisfaction

Primarily in teaching
Both, leaning towards
teaching
Both, leaning towards
researchPrimarily in research
Very highHigh
Moderate
Low
Very low

31
50
132
77
20
8

11%
17%
46%
27%
7%
3%

75
150
329
198
58
26

10%
20%
43%
26%
8%
3%

B7/1

Working conditions since you started...
Very much improved
Improved
Working conditions at thisSameinstitution
Deteriorated
Very much deteriorated

26
67
151
39
4

9%
23%
53%
14%
1%

78
216
265
143
59

10%
28%
35%
19%
8%

A11

B2
Teaching vs. Research
Orientation

B7/2
Working conditions inhigher education andacademic research
generally

Very much improved
Improved
Same
Deteriorated
Very much deteriorated

9
3%
38
13%
188
66%
45
16%
7
2%
N=287

22
3%
132
17%
392
52%
179
24%
36
5%
N=761

81
Table 3.

Internalization by Academic Generation, 2007
New
Entrants

C5

Teaching any courses?
AbroadIn a different language
Neither%

SeniorFaculty

%

28
10%
7
2%
255
89%
N=287

86
11%
33
4%
658
86%
N=761

D1
D1/4

Collaborate on research with international colleagues?
Yes
58
25%
No
171
75%
N=229

227
36%
400
64%
N=627

D1/5

If yes, principal country they come from?
MexicoEU
CanadaSouth or Central America
UK
Asia
Africa
Other

D2/5

3%
50%
31%
7%
21%
22%
9%
21%
N=58

14
6%
114
50%
52
23%
33
15%
60
26%
74
33%
22
10%
51
22%
N=232

41
18%
39
17%
45
20%
39
17%
65
28%
N=229

129
21%
144
23%
115
18%
85
14%
154
25%
N=627

Published in foreign language
Co-authored with US colleagues
Co-authored with foreign colleagues
Published in foreign country
On-line or electronic published

N
196
210
189
192
191

Mean
3
37
5
9
19

Std
14
41
15
21
34

N
557
598
547
544
541

Mean
3
43
7
8
12

Std
12
43
17
20
26

Your funding comes fromUS organizations
International organizations

N
109
108

Mean
63
3

Std
47
13

N
398
398

Mean
69
4

Std
44
16

Is your primary research international inscope or orientation?
Very much
Much
NeutralLittleNot at all

D5

D8

F10

2
29
18
4
12
13
5
12

Among your publications, what percentages
were?

First Language
English
Non-English

243
85%
44
15%
N=287

663
87%
98
13%
N=761

82
How well positioned is this new generation of faculty to contribute to the
newly globalized academic profession? This question assumes particularimportance in light of an earlier report by Cummings (2008) based on the 1992
Carnegie survey that the American academic profession demonstrated a startling
insularity vis-à-vis the world and a self-absorption. When we focus particularlyon their international experience (these are, after the faculty, who will staff
America in the age of globalization), the data in Table 3 paint, on the face of it, atroubling picture. The new entrants are as likely as their senior colleagues toreport English as their first language (fully 85%) and to report teaching abroad orin a different language (12%). More ominously, they are less likely to reportthat their research is international in scope or orientation (35% versus 44%
among senior faculty), and less likely to report collaboration on research withinternational colleagues (25% versus 36% among senior faculty).
While it is not clear to what extent the relatively short duration of theircareers to date is artificially truncating their collegial relationship and what may
be fledgling developmental interests, nonetheless there does not appear to be any
clear new departure here with respect to international linkages. (It may indeed
be that in the U.S., it will be institutional administrators rather than faculty who
will be leading the American academic response to globalization.)
Findings: Perceptions of System and Institutional Change
When we look at how American academics assess the turbulence in higher
education over the past generation, we find a mixed, but hardly overwhelmingly
negative, picture. The data in Table 4 show indeed that the majority of U.S.
academics (56%) perceive a basic stasis in the system – conditions are about thesame as when they entered the profession. Among the minority who perceive
change, those who report “deterioration” (25%) slightly outnumber those whoreport improvement (18%).
Differences among institutional types andacademic fields are relatively small: research university faculty are more likely
to perceive deterioration and other 4-year faculty improvement – probably
reflecting a certain levelling in the system, especially in the public sector.
Among academic generations, new entrants are less likely to perceive change(their perspective is, of course, seriously foreshortened), senior faculty are more
likely, and, in particular, more likely to perceive deterioration.

83
Table 4. Perceptions of Working Conditions at Respondents’ Home Institution by
Institutional Type, Academic Field and Career Stage, 2007
Very much
improved

Much
improved

Same

468

9%

28%

41%

17%

4%

590

11%

26%

38%

18%

7%

Humanities & Arts

255

6%

25%

45%

19%

5%

Social and Behavioural
Sciences, Education

291

12%

28%

36%

19%

6%

Life Sciences, Medical Sciences& Agriculture

207

13%

23%

44%

14%

6%

Physical, Mathematics,
Computer and Engineering
Sciences

180

6%

30%

39%

18%

6%

Business, Law and others

115

14%

32%

30%

16%

8%

New Entrants

246

8%

24%

54%

13%

1%

Senior Faculty

761

10%

28%

35%

19%

8%

Institution TypeN

Research Universities
Other 4-Year

Very much
Deteriorated deteriorated

Academic Field

Career Stage

Table 5. Perceptions of Working Conditions in Higher Education Generally byInstitutional Type, Academic Field and Career Stage, 2007
Institution TypeN

Very much
improved

Much
improved

Same

Deteriorated

Very muchdeteriorated

Research Universities

468

3%

12%

56%

24%

4%

Other 4-Year

590

3%

19%

55%

19%

4%

Humanities & Arts

255

0%

14%

56%

25%

5%

Social and Behavioural
Sciences, Education

291

4%

18%

56%

18%

5%

Life Sciences, Medical
Sciences & Agriculture

207

4%

13%

55%

24%

4%

Physical, Mathematics,
Computer and Engineering
Sciences

180

2%

15%

57%

22%

4%

Business, Law and others

115

5%

26%

50%

17%

1%

New Entrants

246

3%

13%

67%

15%

2%

Senior Faculty

761

3%

17%

52%

24%

5%

Academic Field

Career Stage84
Table 5 shows faculty perceptions of change at their own college oruniversity, in contradistinction to general assessments of the “state of thesystem”. And here the data are decidedly upbeat. While a plurality (39%) –rather than a majority – of U.S. faculty see a dominant pattern of stasis, the vast
majority do report change, but only by a 3:2 ratio (37% versus. 24%) change in apositive direction. When we examine differences by institutional type,academic field and generation, we find again very modest differences. Facultyin the social sciences and the professions perceive greater improvement (and that
may be greatly affected by the increasing salience of professional accrediting
agencies in the U.S.) than others (even natural scientists); senior faculty are more
likely than new entrants to perceive deterioration.
In general, these findings tend to corroborate earlier findings that reportsatisfaction at the individual level, but perceived concern/deterioration at theaggregate level of the profession as a whole. Nonetheless, the overall tone is
not pessimistic.
Item Comparisons: 1992-2007
Table 6 confirms and adds nuances to our earlier portrait of change andcontinuity by comparing overall U.S. faculty responses to the 1992 and 2007
international surveys on selected items that readily allow such comparison.
Confirmed are the ascent of academic women (42.0% in 2007 versus.
25.5% in 1992), the decline of tenure (57% versus 63% fifteen years earlier), a
revolutionary new emphasis on faculty performance evaluation (7.9% in 2007
reported that their work was not regularly evaluated compared to 40.2% in 1992),
and relatively high job satisfaction (63% satisfied or very satisfied versus 52.3%
in 1992. Perhaps surprising is the relatively positive ratings of teaching andresearch facilities: the majority in 2007 rated all – except laboratories andresearch equipment – as “good” or “excellent” compared to about one-third in
1992. Laboratories and research equipment are the one clear low point. Also
surprising are the relatively positive ratings in the area of governance.
Table 6. Selected Comparisons, 1992 & 2007
N= 19330, 1992; N =1048, 2007

[1]

F1

Gender

1992

2007
1992

2007

Male
Female

74.5%
25.5%

58.0%
42.0%

85
2007
[3a]

Highest earned degree

Doctorate
MD, JD

84.1%
13.5%
1992

2007

63.7%

57.0%

[11b]

A11

Nature of employment

Tenured

[17]
a
b
c

B4

How important is...?
My academic discipline
This institution
My department in this institution

Very important
72.0%
70.0%
36.7%
26.0%
52.4%
25.0%

[24]

B3

How do you evaluate...?

1992

2007

Classrooms
Technology for teaching
Laboratories
Research equipment
Computer facilities
Library holdings
Faculty offices
Secretarial support

36.0%
32.9%
31.9%
28.4%
46.9%
41.2%
32.5%
29.8%

52.0%
61.0%
24.0%
26.0%
60.0%
58.0%
57.0%
41.0%

83.5%
14.5%

Fairly important
23.8%
23.0%
42.0%
35.0%
35.1%
34.0%

Good + Excellent

[27g]

B6
Are you satisfied with your job?
Your job situation as a whole
B5/5

Career Attitude[28c]
If I had it to do over again, I would not
become an academic
[40]

[43]

[44]

B2

Very satisfied + Satisfied
52.3%
1992
63.0%
2007
SomewhatdisagreeDisagree

14.2%
23.0%

51.1%
53.0%

Preferences in research or teaching?

1992

2007

Primarily in teaching
In both, but leaning toward teaching
In both, but leaning toward researchPrimarily in research

12.7%
33.8%
41.6%
11.8%

22.0%
34.0%
34.0%
10.0%

Are you working independently on anyof your research projects?

1992

2007

Yes
No

60.5%
39.5%

73.0%
27.0%

Do you have collaborators in any ofyour research projects?

1992

2007

Yes
No

78.0%
22.0%

77.0%
23.0%

1992
2007

86
E2
[56]

How influential are you in shaping key
academic policies?
At the level of department or similarunit
At the level of faculty, school orsimilar unit
At the institution level

[57]

E5

1992

2007

59.1%

73.0%

29.7%
13.7%

47.0%
20.0%

How do you feel about management
and the decision-making process?
Top-level administrators are providing
competent leadershipI'm kept informed about what is goingon at this institution
Lack of faculty involvement is a real
problem
Students should have a stronger voicein determining policy that affects them
The administration supports academic
freedom[60]

Very +Somewhat
influential

Is your own work at this institution regularly
appraised or evaluated?
No

Agree

Somewhat Agree

11.7%

10.0%

22.8%

31.0%

12.8%

10.0%

24.1%

33.0%

23.9%

13.0%

25.5%

18.0%

15.7%

6.0%

23.3%

18.0%

21.3%

19.0%

28.7%

39.0%

1992

2007

40.2%

7.9%

Compared to 1992, faculty in 2007 were more likely to report that they
were influential at both the department and school/college level, although
influence at the campus-wide level continues to flag. These findings are
particularly puzzling in light of the significantly lower importance that faculty
ascribe to their academic department in 2007 vis-à-vis 1992. They generate anumber of nuanced questions about the conventional wisdom that has identified
a growing narrowing of faculty interests in their academic programs anddepartments at the expense of their larger institutions and higher education moregenerally, suggesting, as they do, an increasing withdrawal of the faculty fromtheir employing organizations across the board.

Summary and Conclusions
What emerges most powerfully as a first impression from the 2007
Changing Academic Profession survey in the United States is first a portrait ofdemographic and career transformation in terms of increasing feminization andthe increasing resort to fixed-term appointments. What effects both of these87
developments will have on the future of academic work and careers is not yet
clear. Preliminary evidence suggests that both developments are associatedwith an increasing specialization of academic work (the emergence ofteaching-only, research-only or program-director-only appointments) and anincreasing focus on undergraduate education.
While American academics are clearly being subjected to increased
accountability pressures reflected in a new emphasis on performance evaluation
largely absent as late as 1992, there is an overall satisfaction with academic work
and working conditions. While amid a pervasive sense of system stasis, there isno concomitant perception of improved working conditions, there is no
pervasive sense of wholesale deterioration in the conditions of work either,
except perhaps in the area of laboratories and research equipment. While there
is general acknowledgement of a pervasive spread of research pressures in
American higher education, the data here suggest that American academics may
be more oriented to teaching in 2007 than they were in 1992. Moreover, thedata on governance suggest that faculty perceive themselves as no lessinfluential in the management of their institutions than they were fifteen years
earlier in 1992, although clearly the absolute magnitude of that influence,
especially at the institutional level, is marginal.
Perhaps the most troubling finding results from a comparison of theinternational perspectives and activities of entrants to the profession and theirmore senior colleagues. In 1992, the first Carnegie international survey
reported that American faculty in comparison with colleagues in 13 othercountries tended to be more insular and less global in their orientation andteaching and research activities. That trend seems to be continuing insofar as
new entrants appear even less involved in academic work that is international inscope than their senior colleagues. This may, of course, simply be an artefactof the early career stage at which they find themselves (fewer opportunities todevelop research networks) and may therefore change over time. The available
data, however, provide no concrete evidence in that regard. Indeed, related datasuggest that international initiatives tend to be the province of administrators(rather than faculty, individually or collectively) suggesting that in the American
context, the faculty (except as individuals) are not the leaders here.
Finally, a notable finding may be the relatively modest differences
discernable by institutional type and academic field. Historically, both
institutional type (the distinctive character of both the research university, on the
one hand, and the free-standing baccalaureate college, on the other) andacademic field (the natural and health sciences and the professions, on the one

88
hand, and the humanities and the arts, on the other) have been major shaping
influences on the American academic system. Differences among fields may begreater than differences by type of institution. Those differences seem to bemuted in these data. In part, that may represent, from an institutional
perspective, a great regression towards the mean. From the disciplinary
perspective, the meaning is less clear (although the absence of differences may
be attributable to the modest size and the consequent grossness of the coding
categories.
In sum, not bad and not doing any worse than 15 years ago!

References
Altbach, P.G. (ed.) (1996). The International Academic Profession: Portraits of Fourteen
Countries. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Altbach, P.G., & Lewis, L.S. (1995). Professorial Attitudes: An International Survey. Change
27(6), November-December, 51-57.
Boyer, E.L., Altbach, P.G., & Whitelaw, M.J. (1994). The Academic Profession: An
International Perspective. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching.
Cummings, W.K. (2008). Is the Academic Center Shifting to Asia? In D. Chapman, W.K.
Cummings, and G.A. Postiglione (eds.), Border Crossing in East Asian Higher Education.
Hong Kong: Springer Press & the Comparative Education Research Centre of the
University of Hong Kong (in press).
Finkelstein, M.J. (2006). The Revolution in Faculty Appointments in the United States: What
has it Meant for Academic Careers? And What Might it Mean for Japan? Higher
Education Forum, 3, Hiroshima: Research Institute for Higher Education, Hiroshima
University, 67-76.
Finkelstein, M.J., Seal, R., & Schuster, J. (1998). The New Academic Generation: A
Profession in Transformation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Lewis, L.S., & Altbach, P.G. (1996). The Professoriate in International Perspective: Who TheyAre and What They Do, Academe 82(3), May-June, 29-33.
Schuster, J.H., & Finkelstein, M.J. (2006). The American Faculty: The Restructuring of
Academic Work and Careers. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

European Countries

89

The Academic Profession in England:
still stratified after all these years?

William Locke∗

1. Introduction
The higher education (HE) sector in the United Kingdom (UK) gives agood impression of being a single unified system, and its academics theappearance of a distinct and uniform profession. In an earlier review, membersof the UK research team outlined the main characteristics of ‘the profession’ in
the UK, in the light of the key themes of the international study of the Changing
Academic Profession (CAP) (Brennan, Locke & Naidoo, 2007). In this, wesought to describe the expansion of academia in a system of over 170 HE
institutions (HEIs) which differ substantially in terms of reputation, resources
and purpose. We argued that academics differ in their responses to the changes
and new influences in higher education – whether this takes the form ofcompliance, resistance or subversion – and that this might partly be explained bydifferences in status within the academic hierarchy, subject characteristics andgenerational differences. We concluded that the picture emerging in the UK“…is of an academic profession facing increasing change but also muchcontinuity, and transforming relatively rapidly into a diversified and increasingly
stratified sector” (loc.cit. p.175).
This paper focuses on the findings from the initial analysis of the responses
to a survey of nearly 1,700 academics from a wide range of higher education
institutions (HEIs) throughout the UK which was carried out by the Centre forHigher Education Research and Information (CHERI) at The Open University,with financial support and/or assistance from the Higher Education Funding∗

Assistant Director, Centre for Higher Education Research and Information (CHERI), The
Open University, United Kingdom, e-mail: W.D.Locke@open.ac.uk

90
Council for England (HEFCE), Universities UK, Guild HE, the HE Academy,
the University and College Union (UCU) and the Universities and Colleges
Employers Association (UCEA). It includes comparisons with findings fromthe original survey of the academic profession in England in 1992 as part of thefirst International Survey of the Academic Profession (Fulton, 1996).
Therefore, it concentrates on the responses to the 2007 survey from those
employed in the HEIs in England. The 2007 CAP questionnaire repeated 13
items included in the earlier survey. The report of the 1992 survey sought toinvestigate institutional diversity and differentiation on the eve of the abolitionof the binary divide in the UK between universities on the one hand andpolytechnics and major colleges of higher education on the other. As such, thisinitial report of what amounts to a fraction of the UK CAP 2007 survey findings
is of an analysis by institutional type utilising three categories: pre-1992
universities, post-1992 universities (i.e. polytechnics at the time of the 1992
survey), and post-2004 universities 1 and HE colleges. These analyticalcategories are also applied to the responses to a selection of other questions inthe survey not included in the 1992 instrument. Further analysis of the UK
CAP survey responses over the coming months will include analysis of the full
UK-wide sample by individual characteristics, such as gender, grade, subject andage/career stage, as well as by a more disaggregated institutional typology forthe remaining items in the 2007 questionnaire.

2. Key facts about the UK academic profession
Table 1a provides data on key characteristics of academic staff in HEIs in
England.2
In 2005/06, academics were a minority (approximately 45%) of all staff in
English HEIs. Two-thirds were employed full time, 64% of which held
permanent positions. Just under a quarter of academics were research-only and,of these, 86% were fixed term. Another quarter were teaching-only and the1

The term ‘post-2004 universities’ refers to those higher education institutions in England thathave gained university status under the revised criteria for university title permitted by the2004 Higher Education Act, which eliminated the requirement for research degree awarding
powers, among other measures designed to relax the definition of a university.
2
Data extracted from the UK Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA, 2007). WhenHESA data for 2006/07 are published, these will be used in future reports, since the survey
was undertaken in that academic year. Typical staff are “those whose working arrangements
are not permanent, involve complex employment relationships and/or involve work awayfrom the supervision of the normal work provider”.

91
remaining half both taught and researched. There were fewer women than men
and more of the former worked part-time. Teaching as a primary employment
function accounted for 71% of full-time academic posts and 87% of part-timeacademic posts.
Table 1a. Academic staff at higher education institutions in England, 2005/06
Full-timePart-time

Total

Academic staff: Total

90,33047,455

137,785% Female

37%

53%

42%

% Research only

28%

11%

22%

% Professors

92%

8%

12%

% Senior lecturers & researchers

89%

11%

22%

% Researchers

86%

14%

25%

% Lecturers

73%

27%

32%

By grade% Other grades11%

By age% Under 35

27%

25%

26%

% Over 55

17%

25%

20%

Among academics, the higher the grade, the higher the proportion of thoseon full-time contracts and the fewer women there were. The average age offull-time academics was 43 years, and 41% were aged over 45 years. The
academic profession in the UK is ageing, but it is not as old as its counterparts inother English-speaking countries. Over a quarter of full-time academic staff
were employed in medicine, dentistry or health disciplines.
Table 1b shows the percentage of academic staff within different categories
of HEIs in 2005/06. Their distribution within the institutional types used in thispaper was as follows:・ pre-1992 universities: 63% of academics
・ post-1992 universities: 30%
・ post-2004 universities and HE colleges: 7%

92
Table 1b. Academic staff at higher education institutions in England, 2005/06
Type

Size

Russell Group

33%

Other pre-1992 universities

30%

post-1992 universities

30%

post-2004 universities

3%

HE colleges

4%

Research Institutes

0.4%

Small (under 500 academic staff)

8%

Medium (500-2,000 academic staff)

56%

Large (over 2,000 academic staff)

36%

Research institutions accounted for only 0.4% of academic staff in England(525 researchers) and the three responses to the survey from such sources havebeen excluded from the foregoing analysis. The majority of academic staff(56%) worked in medium-sized HEIs each with between 500 and 2,000
academic staff, although over a third (36%) were in large HEIs, employing over
2,000 academics. For example, University College London employed nearly
5,000; the University of Oxford over 4,000; the Universities of Cambridge andManchester nearly 4,000; and Imperial College over 3,000.

3. The UK Survey – Methodology
The generic CAP questionnaire was ‘translated’ into the UK version which
involved minor amendments to wording and grammar. Where UK-specificcategorisations were required (for example, occupational grade) the definitionsof the UK Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) were used where possible,
so as to facilitate comparison with officially verified data on the total populationof academics in the UK. In the case of disciplines (i.e. subject of highest
degree, current academic department and subject taught), a matrix wasdeveloped to map how the UK categorisation translated into both the disciplines
used in the generic CAP questionnaire and the HESA categories.
The section (F) on “Personal background and professional preparation” wasplaced at the beginning of the questionnaire, so that respondents could quickly
finish the first section and thus increase the likelihood of fully completed
responses. The data from this section will be moved back to the end of the UKdata set, so that they match those of other national surveys.
Three UK-specific questions were added to the generic questions in the new
Section A (originally F):

93・ Where did you study for your degree(s)?
・ What institutions did you attend during your secondary education?
・ What is your ethnic origin?
The survey was accessed on-line only and individual academics wereinvited via their institutions or via UCU to respond during the spring and earlysummer of 2007. The HEIs were selected to maximise the prospects ofachieving a representative sample, according to type, size and location
throughout the UK. The institutions were also asked to select samples thatwere representative of their academic staff in terms of age, gender, ethnic group,
grade, subject and whether they worked full- or part-time. The subset of thesample approached directly via UCU was randomly selected. The grosssample included full- and part-time academic professionals who undertake
teaching and/or research. Responses received were 1,667. It is notpossible to calculate the gross sample size and therefore the response ratewith any great confidence, as a large proportion of the invitations were sentout by institutions and there was no means of recording how many were sent
to – let alone received by – potential respondents. Suffice to say, our worst
case estimate is a response rate of around 15%, which seems to be in linewith other lengthy on-line questionnaires aimed at academics (Bryson &Barnes, 2000).
Nine criteria were used to assess the representativeness of this net sample of
1,667, grouped under personal, professional and institutional characteristics:
Personal
1. Gender
2. Ethnic origin
3. AgeProfessional
4. Subject
5. Grade
6. Mode of work, i.e. full- or part-timeInstitutional
7. Type (Russell Group, Other pre-1992 university, post-1992 university,
post-2004 university, HE college and Research Institute)
8. Size (over 2,000 academics; 500-2,000; under 500)
9. Location (UK nation, English region)

94
HESA definitions have been used for all criteria except 7, 8 and 9 for which
additional sub-sets were identified, as shown above, to assist with the analysis of
responses to the survey: in other words, so that the criteria match those used todefine the sample. The responses were then weighted to produce a sample of
800 that is representative of the academic population in the UK for submission to
the international database. The following analysis is based on those responses
from academics employed in HEIs in England from the weighted UK sample of800, so as to complement future comparative analyses of the international
dataset.

4. The UK Survey – Initial analysis by institutional type comparedwith the 1992 results
The key results reported in this paper mainly relate to the attractiveness of
the academic profession, issues of relevance and the nature of the managementof institutions.
Time spent on different activities
Respondents were asked “how many hours they spent in a typical week onfive main activities” including teaching, research and administration. Figures
1a, 1b and 1c show the hours per week spent on teaching in term-time in 1992
and 2007, by institutional type.
Overall, fewer 2007 respondents report spending 21 or more hours per
week teaching during term time than the 1992 respondents. In pre-1992
universities this has fallen from nearly one-third in 1992 to just over a quarter.
Many more post-1992 university respondents spend this amount of time eachweek teaching (40%) but this has fallen by 16% over the period. The biggest
fall in the proportions spending 21 or more hours per week teaching during term
time, however, is in post-2004 universities and HE colleges, from 62% in 1992
to only 26% in 2007. The majority of respondents in these institutions (55%)
now teach between 1 and 15 hours per week.
Figures 2a, 2b and 2c show the hours per week spent on research in thevacation in 1992 and 2007, by institutional type.

95

25

20

15
Universities (1992)
Pre-1992
Universities (2007)

10

5

0
0 hrs

Figure 1a.

1-5 hrs

6-10 hrs 11-15 hrs 16-20 hrs 21-30 hrs

31+ hrs

Hours per week spent on teaching in term-time in 1992 and 2007,
universities (1992) and pre-1992 universities (2007)

35
30
25
20
Polytechnics (1992)
Post-1992
Universities (2007)

15
10
5
0

0 hrs

Figure 1b.

1-5 hrs

6-10 hrs 11-15 hrs 16-20 hrs 21-30 hrs

31+ hrs

Hours per week spent on teaching in term-time in 1992 and 2007,
polytechnics (1992) and post-1992 universities (2007)

96

35

30

25

20

Colleges (1992)
Post-2004 Universities
and HE Colleges (2007)

15

10

5

0
0 hrs

1-5 hrs

6-10 hrs 11-15 hrs 16-20 hrs 21-30 hrs

31+ hrs

Figure 1c. Hours per week spent on teaching in term-time in 1992 and 2007,
HE colleges (1992) and post-2004 universities and HE colleges(2007)

40
35
30
25
20

Universities (1992)
Pre-1992
Universities (2007)

15
10
5
0

0 hrs

1-5 hrs

6-10 hrs

11-15 hrs

16-20 hrs

21-30 hrs

31+ hrs

Figure 2a. Hours per week spent on research in the vacation in 1992 and 2007,
universities (1992) and pre-1992 universities (2007)

97
35
30

25

20
Polytechnics (1992)
Post-1992
Universities (2007)

15

10

5

0

0 hrs

1-5 hrs

6-10 hrs

11-15 hrs 16-20 hrs 21-30 hrs

31+ hrs

Figure 2b. Hours per week spent on research in the vacation in 1992 and 2007,
polytechnics (1992) and post-1992 universities (2007)

35

30

25

20
Colleges
Post-2004 Universities
and HE Colleges (2007)

15

10

5

0
0 hrs

1-5 hrs

6-10 hrs 11-15 hrs 16-20 hrs 21-30 hrs

31+ hrs

Figure 2c. Hours per week spent on research in the vacation in 1992 and 2007,
HE colleges (1992) and post-2004 universities and HE colleges(2007)

98
Fewer respondents from pre-1992 universities report spending more than 11hours a week on research in term-time and during the vacation than in the 1992
survey. In contrast, more respondents from both post-1992 universities andpost-2004 universities and HE colleges are now undertaking research for morethan 11 hours a week. Looking at the median responses for research, thesehave remained largely static for pre-1992 university respondents between thetwo surveys, at 12 hours in term-time and 29 in the vacation. However, thosefrom post-1992 universities now spend more time on research during thevacation than in the first survey (20 compared with 13 hours per week in 1992).
Respondents from post-2004 universities and HE colleges also spend more time
researching than in the 1992 survey, at 6 hours in term-time and 15 hours during
the vacation. Interestingly, across all institution types, the median responses forhours spent on administration have not changed overall between 1992 and 2007.
Primary interests
The mission drift towards more research in the ex-polytechnics in the
mid-1990s, followed by greater selectivity in funding and the gradual but
profound sundering of teaching and research may have created a number ofcrosscurrents in relation to where academics’ primary interests lie, in teaching,research or different combinations of both. The results for 2007 are shown in
Figure 3.

Pre-1992 Universities

Teaching
Teaching/research
Research/teaching
Research

Post-1992 Universities

Post-2004 Universities
and HE Colleges

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

Figure 3. CAP 2007 survey – Do your interests lie primarily in teaching or
research?

99
Table 2. CAP 2007 survey – Do your interests lie primarily in teaching or
research? Percentages, by institutional typePrimarily in teaching
In both, but leaning
towards teaching
In both, but leaning
towards researchPrimarily in research

All Institution

pre-1992
universities

post-1992
universities

post 2004
universities &HE colleges

11

7

16

46

29

28

34

23

37

37

39

27

24

28

10

5

In 2007, more academics in pre-1992 universities state their primaryinterest lies in research than in teaching, although the majority still professes aninterest in both with a leaning towards one or the other. In post-1992
universities, the vast majority includes both, while in post-2004 universities andHE colleges a substantial minority (46%) favours teaching. In these HEIs, only
5% are primarily interested in research.
In post-1992 universities there has been a fall since the earlier survey in the
proportions of respondents whose interests lie primarily in teaching, or in bothbut leaning towards teaching, from 66% to 50% in 2007. Among pre-1992
university respondents, there has been a fall in those whose interests lie in both
but are leaning towards research. In all types of institution more respondents in2007 expressed a prime interest in research: a 5% or 6% rise in pre- andpost-1992 universities, but a smaller 2% rise in post-2004 universities and HE
colleges. In the latter types of institution, a huge fall in those with an interest in
both but leaning towards teaching (from 52% to 23%) was accompanied by botha sharp 22% rise in those primarily interested in teaching and a 6% rise among
those with at least a leaning towards research.
This suggests somedifferentiation in post-2004 universities and HE colleges between thoseprimarily interested in teaching and those undertaking or even focusing on
research, with both groups of respondents representing around 50% of the total
respondents from this institutional type. We will be exploring this further witha more disaggregated analysis by institutional type and through qualitative
research.

100
Scholarly contributions
Both 1992 and 2007 respondents were asked how many scholarly
contributions they had completed in the last three years. Across all types ofpublication, from authored and edited books to articles and conference papers,
fewer publications are recorded from pre-1992 universities and post-2004
universities and HE colleges in 2007 than in 1992. In contrast, those frompost-1992 universities now appear to be producing substantially more than in
1992. In terms of contributions per individual, they now rival pre-1992
university academics for authored books and research reports and monographs
for funded projects. This confirms the wide spread of research activity among
academics, even as funding for research becomes increasingly selective and thedefinitions of what counts as research and who is counted as an ‘active
researcher’ have narrowed.
Nature of the profession
Respondents were asked for their views on a series of statements about theacademic profession. Table 2 shows the percentages of those who agreed orstrongly agreed with each statement.
Table 3. CAP 2007 survey – Percentages agreeing or strongly agreeing withstatements about the academic profession

Scholarship is best defined as the
preparation and presentation of findings on
original research.
Scholarship includes the application ofacademic knowledge in real-life settings
Scholarship includes the preparation ofreports that synthesise the major trends andfindings 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 personalstrain.
Teaching and research are hardly
compatible with each other.
Faculty in my discipline have a professional
obligation to apply their knowledge toproblems in society.

Allinstitutions

pre-1992
universities

post-1992
universities

post-2004
universities
and HE
colleges

62

65

50

57

71

68

77

90

66

63

78

68

49

47

56

59

27

24

34

39

52

50

59

72

28

26

40

14

63

59

75

86

101
Those from post-1992 (50%) and post-2004 universities and HE colleges(57%) are less likely to agree or strongly agree that “Scholarship is best definedas the preparation and presentation of findings on original research” than thosefrom pre-1992 universities (65%). The former are more likely to agree orstrongly agree that “Scholarship includes the application of academic knowledge
in real-life settings” (77% and 90% respectively) than pre-1992 universities(68%) and that “Scholarship includes the preparation of reports that synthesise
the major trends and findings in my field” (78% and 68% respectively) than
pre-1992 universities (63%). This difference is even more pronounced in theirviews on whether “Faculty in my discipline have a professional obligation to
apply their knowledge to problems in society”. From post-2004 universities
and HE colleges, 86% of respondents agree or strongly agree with this statementcompared with 75% of those from post-1992 universities and only 59% of
pre-1992 university replies. There are clearly different conceptions ofscholarship and professional responsibilities in the constituent parts of the
English higher education sector. This would benefit from further qualitativeand in-depth investigation.
A surprisingly large proportion (49%) of all 2007 respondents believes“This is a poor time for any young person to begin an academic career in myfield”. It will be important to analyse this by subject discipline, age of
respondent and length of time working in higher education. Those in post-1992
universities and post-2004 universities and HE colleges are more likely to agreewith this statement than pre-1992 university respondents. In 1992, the order
was reversed, with university respondents (45%) more likely to have agreed thanthose from polytechnics (37%) and colleges (35%). In 2007, this negative viewis reinforced by 27% of all respondents who agree or strongly agree that “If I had
it to do over again, I would not become an academic”, including a greater
proportion of respondents from post-1992 (34%) and post-2004 universities andHE colleges (39%). This is an overall increase from 1992, when 19% ofuniversity and polytechnic respondents and 23% of college respondents agreed
or strongly agreed with this statement. Also in 1992, around 50% thought “Myjob is a source of considerable personal strain”. In 2007, over half of all
respondents agree with this statement with, again, a greater proportion of
respondents from post-1992 and post-2004 universities and HE colleges (59%
and 72% respectively) than those from pre-1992 universities (50%). The
statement that “Teaching and research are hardly compatible with each other” isbelieved by 28% overall, but 40% of post-1992 university respondents, although
the figure is much lower for post-2004 university and HE college respondents

102(14%).
Figure 4 illustrates the pattern of all responses in 2007, showing the orderof statements according to the proportion of respondents agreeing and strongly
agreeing with each of them. It shows that over half disagree or strongly
disagree with the statements “Teaching and research are hardly compatible witheach other” and “If I had it to do over again, I would not become an academic”.

Scholarship includes the application of academic
knowledge in real-life settings
Scholarship includes the preparation of reportsthat synthesise the major trends and findings of
my field
Faculty in my discipline have a professional
obligation to apply their knowledge to problems
in society.

Strongly
agree &
agree

Scholarship is best defined as the preparation andpresentation of findings on original research.

Neutral

My job is a source of considerable personal strain
Disagree& strongly
disagreeThis is a poor time for any young person to begin
an academic career in my field.

Teaching and research are hardly compatible witheach other.

If I had it to do over again, I would not become an
academic
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Figure 4. CAP 2007 survey – Statements about the academic profession

Views on research
In the 2007 survey, respondents were asked their views on aspects ofresearch, and the results are shown in Figure 5.
The statements which attracted most agreement are “My research is
conducted in full-compliance with ethical guidelines” (84%) and “The pressure
to raise external funds has increased since my first appointment” (76%). Most,
72%, agree or strongly agree that “High expectations to increase research
productivity are a threat to the quality of research” and over half agree or103strongly agree that “High expectations of useful results and application are athreat to the quality of research”. For both of these statements, more
respondents from post-1992 universities than other types of HEI agree orstrongly agree about these threats to the quality of research. Two-thirds of all
respondents agree or strongly agree with the assertion that “Interdisciplinary
research is emphasised at my institution”, although fewer than 50% of thosefrom post-1992 universities did.
Those statements receiving the leastagreement included “Restrictions on the publications of results from mypublicly- and privately-funded research have increased since my first
appointment”, and “Research funding should be concentrated (targeted) on themost productive researchers”.

My research is conducted in full-compliance with ethicalguidelines
The pressure to raise external research funds has increased
since my first appointment
High expectations to increase research productivity are athreat to the quality of researchInterdisciplinary research is emphasised at my institution

High expectations of useful results and application are a threat
to the quality of research
My institution emphasises commercially-oriented or appliedresearch
External sponsors or clients have no influence over myresearch activities

All institutions

Pre-1992
Universities

Research funding should be concentrated (targeted) on themost productive researchers

Post-1992
Universities

Restrictions on the publication of results from my publiclyfunded research have increased since my first appointment

Post-2004
Universities andHE colleges

Restrictions on the publication of results from my privatelyfunded research have increased since my first appointment
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

%

Figure 5. CAP 2007 survey – Statements about research, percentages agreeing
and strongly agreeing by institution type

104
Table 4. CAP 2007 survey – Statements about research, percentages agreeing
and strongly agreeing by institution type

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 noinfluence over my research activities
The pressure to raise external researchfunds has increased since my first
appointment
Interdisciplinary research isemphasised at my institution
My institution emphasises
commercially-oriented or appliedresearch
My research is conducted infull-compliance with ethicalguidelines
Research funding should beconcentrated (targeted) on the mostproductive researchers
High expectations to increase research
productivity are a threat to the qualityof researchHigh expectations of useful results andapplication are a threat to the qualityof researchAll
Institutions

pre-1992
universities

post-1992
universities

post-2004
universities
and HE
colleges

12

7

34

5

10

11

9

5

36

38

27

54

76

74

83

88

65

70

46

50

55

52

67

61

84

82

97

88

22

23

19

9

72

71

83

75

55

52

72

63

Regulatory expectations
Respondents were asked whether their institution has regulatory
expectations for individual faculty (e.g. quantitative targets) for different aspectsof teaching. The numbers confirming this are shown in Figure 6.
More respondents from post-1992 universities report regulatory
expectations than from other types of HEI, with the highest for “Number ofhours in the classroom”, “Number of students in your classes” and “Overall
counting exercise”. Across all types of HEI, “Percentage of students passing
exams” attracted the fewest respondents reporting regulatory expectations.

105

Number of hours in the classroom

All institutions

Number of students in your classes

Pre-1992
Universities

Number of graduate students forsupervision

Post-1992
Universities

Percentage of students passing
exams

Post-2004
Universities andHE collegesTime for student consultation
Overall counting exercise for someor all of the above
0

20

40

60

80

100

%

Figure 6. CAP 2007 survey – Regulatory expectations for individual faculty,
by institution typePrimary influence on decision-making
Respondents were asked which of the following parties has the primary
influence on a given series of decisions: government or external stakeholders,institutional managers, academic unit managers, Faculty committees/boards,
individual faculty, and students. This question did not entirely match the 1992
survey, which asked how centralised (“controlled by top administrators”) or
decentralised (“controlled by faculty”) decision-making was, although the seven
original examples of decisions were all included in the 2007 survey along withfour new examples.
On several of the decisions, such as “Selecting key administrators” and“Determining budget priorities”, institutional managers are thought to be theprimary influence by more respondents from all institution types. In pre-1992
universities, more respondents feel that Faculty committees/boards have theprimary influence on “Making promotion decisions”, “Setting admissions
standards for undergraduate students” and “Approving new academic programs”,
whilst an academic unit manager has most say in “Determining the overallteaching load of faculty”. Across the board, students were never regarded as
the prime influence, even in “Evaluating teaching”.

106
Table 5. CAP 2007 survey – Primary influence on decisions made (%)
Government Institutional
managers
or external
stakeholders
Selecting key
administrators
Recruiting newacademic andresearch staff
Makingpromotion
decisions
Determining
budget priorities
Determining theoverall teachingload of faculty
Setting admission
standards forundergraduate
students
Approving newacademic
programs
Evaluatingteaching
Setting internal
research priorities
Evaluating
research
Establishinginternational
linkages

Academic
Unit
managerFacultycommittees/
boardsIndividual
faculty

Students

4

52

13

22

9

0

0

16

28

35

21

0

3

29

13

49

6

0

3

56

15

22

5

0

5

22

34

22

17

0

5

28

15

38

15

0

3

32

8

52

6

0

6

14

15

29

21

16

0

24

20

23

32

0

16

20

19

23

22

0

0

26

17

9

48

0

In the 1992 survey, only two of the seven decisions had been described by
the universities and polytechnics as decentralised – “Determining the overallteaching load of faculty” and “Setting admissions standards for undergraduate
students”. The respondents from the colleges had reported a very much more
centralised decision-making process.
Institutional resources to support individual academic work
Respondents’ evaluations of institutional resources to support individual
academic work suggest an overall decline in pre-1992 universities, a general
improvement in post-1992 universities and a mixed picture in post-2004
universities and HE colleges.

107

Library facilities and services
Telecommunications
Computer facilities
Your office space
Excellent &Very good

Laboratories
Technology for teaching

Good

Teaching support staff
Research support staff

Fair & Poor

Research equipment and instruments
Classrooms
Secretarial support
Research funding
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Figure 7. CAP 2007 survey – Evaluation of facilities, resources or personnel
needed to support individual work
Table 6. CAP 2007 survey – Evaluation of facilities, resources or personnel
needed to support individual work. Percentages regarding them as
excellent or very good, by institutional typeAll Institutions

pre-1992
universities

post-1992
universities

post-2004
universities &HE colleges

Classrooms

31

33

29

43

Technology for teaching

40

40

45

21

Laboratories

41

43

37

8

Research equipment andinstruments

35

42

10

17

Computer facilities

44

48

34

23

Library facilities andservices

55

58

55

35

Your office space

41

43

43

9

Secretarial support

28

31

20

7

Telecommunications

52

41

54

12

Teaching support staff

33

32

39

30

Research support staff

33

31

46

4

Research funding

17

17

23

5

108
Fewer pre-1992 university respondents in 2007 than in 1992 now regard
classrooms, computer facilities and secretarial support as excellent or very good.
The only improvements in these institutions seem to have been in technology forteaching and library facilities. Conversely, computing facilities and secretarial
support are the only resources regarded as excellent or very good by fewer 2007
respondents from post-1992 universities than in the 1992 survey. All the othersources of support are regarded more highly. In the post-2004 universities andHE colleges, generally fewer responded in 2007 that their facilities are at least
very good, although the notable exceptions are research equipment, classrooms
and library facilities and services, which are rated more highly in these types of
institution. Overall in 2007, as shown in Figure 7 and Table 6, a majority
thinks their library facilities and services and telecommunications are at least
very good, but this hides a generally lower rating for all institutional resources
by respondents from post-2004 universities and HE colleges.
Affiliation
Table 7 shows the percentages of respondents to the 2007 survey who
regard their affiliation to their academic discipline, department and institution as
essential or very important.
Table 7. CAP 2007 survey – Affiliation to academic discipline, department andinstitution. Percentage regarding them as essential or very
important, by institutional typeAll institutions

pre-1992
universities

post-1992
universities

post-2004
universities &HE colleges

My academic discipline

81

82

85

57

My department

57

56

60

60

My institution

36

39

27

34

In the pre- and post-1992 universities 81% believe this of their discipline
but the proportion is much lower in the post-2004 universities and HE colleges.
However, only 36% believe it of their institution, including a substantially lower
proportion of respondents (27%) from post-1992 universities. This confirms
previous findings on primary commitments (Bryson & Barnes, 2000).

109

My academic
discipline

Essential &very important
Quite
important

My department
Useful & Not
at allimportant

My institution

0%

Figure 8.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CAP 2007 survey – Affiliation to academic discipline, department
and institution

Figure 8 shows all the responses to this question, including a substantial
minority amounting to 25% who rate their institution as merely useful (19%) or
not at all important (6%), but only 7% who think of their discipline in the samelight.
Views on their own institution
Respondents were asked about their views on the management of their own
HEI.
Figure 9 shows that by far the highest proportion of respondents from alltypes of HEI agree or strongly agree with the statements that there is:“A cumbersome administration process” (73%)“A strong performance orientation” (70%)“A top-down management style” (68%) and“A strong emphasis on the institution’s mission” (59%).

110

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 towards teachingactivities

All institutions

A supportive attitude of administrative staff towards research
activities

Pre-1992 universities
Post-1992 universities

Professional development for administration/management duties
for individual faculty

Post-2004 universities andHE colleges

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 100%Figure 9. CAP 2007 survey – Views on the management of respondent’s
institution, percentage agreeing or strongly agreeing

Views on administration and faculty involvement
Respondents were asked their views on the administration and faculty
involvement in their own institution.
Figure 10 and Table 8 show that those agreeing with these statements werein the minority, although it is worth pointing out that two of the five statements
were negative. Less than a quarter of respondents agree or strongly agree that
“Top-level administrators are providing competent leadership” (only 12% in
post-2004 universities and HE colleges) and only a third feel informed about
what is going on in their institution (again only 16% in post-2004 universities
and HE colleges). Over a third see lack of faculty involvement as a real
problem, although the proportion is smaller in post-1992 universities (26%).
28% (but more in post-2004 universities and HE colleges (50%)) think that
“Students should have a stronger voice in determining policy that affects them”.
Only a third (and only a quarter in post-1992 universities) believe that “Theadministration supports academic freedom”.

111

All institutions

Top-level administrators are providing
competent leadershipPre-1992 universities
I am kept informed about what is going on at
this institution

Post-1992
universities
Post-2004
universities and HE
colleges

Lack of faculty involvement is a real problem

Students should have a stronger voice indetermining policy that affects them

The administration supports academic
freedom
0

10

20

30

40

50

60
%

Figure 10. CAP 2007 survey – Views on administration and faculty involvement,
percentage agreeing or strongly agreeing, by institution type

Table 8. CAP 2007 survey – Views on administration and faculty involvement,
percentage agreeing or strongly agreeing, by institution typeAll Institutions

pre-1992
universities

post-1992
universities

post-2004
universities
and HE
colleges

Top-level administrators areproviding competentleadership

22

24

16

12

I am kept informed about
what is going on at thisinstitution

33

35

29

16

Lack of faculty involvement isa real problem

35

37

26

42

Students should have astronger voice in determining
policy that affects them

28

25

36

50

The administration supports
academic freedom

34

36

27

56

112
Overall satisfaction
Academics’ overall satisfaction with their current job appears to havedeclined in the period since the 1992 survey. The 2007 results are shown in
Figure 11.

Pre-1992
universities

All institutions

Very high-highMediumPost-1992
universities

Low-very low

Post-2004
universities andHE colleges
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 11. CAP 2007 survey – Overall satisfaction with current job, byinstitutional type

The proportions from all types of institution who are highly or very highly
satisfied have fallen by between 2% and 5% to an average of 47% for all
respondents. In 2007, satisfaction is still highest among pre-1992 university
respondents (50% compared with 53% in the 1992 survey) and lowest among
those from post-2004 universities and HE colleges (23% compared with 40% in1992). However, those who rate their satisfaction as low or very low are also
more numerous in pre-1992 universities (16%) than in post-1992 universities(14%) and post-2004 universities and HE colleges (7%). Views seem to be
most polarised in pre-1992 universities.
Considered major change and taken concrete actions
In 2007, respondents were asked: “Within the last five years, have you
considered a major change in your job? If so, did you take concrete actions tomake such a change?”
Figure 12 shows that just under a quarter have not considered making any
major changes. Of the remainder, the fewest (13%) have considered changing
to a management position in their HEI, and even fewer (8%) have taken concrete

113
action to achieve this. An academic position in another UK institution has been
considered by 30% and most of these, a quarter of all respondents, have taken
action. Almost as many have considered an academic position in anothercountry but far fewer have actually done anything about this. A greater
proportion (37%) has considered working outside HE but, again, fewer (11%)
have taken action.

40

Considered

35

Action taken
Not considered making
any major changes

30
%

25
20
15
10
5
0
Management
position in yourinstitution

Work outside
Academic position Academic position
higherin another institute in another country
education/researchwithin the country

Figure 12. CAP 2007 survey – Considered major change and taken concrete
actions

5. Summary and initial conclusions
In the 15 years since the end of the binary divide in the UK, this initial
analysis of the UK CAP survey suggests that in some areas (interest in, andhours spent on, research; and institutional resources, at least between pre- andpost-1992 universities) academics’ views and conditions of work appear to have
harmonised across the identified different institutional types. However, there
remain distinctive differences (in the number of hours spent on teaching;
respondents’ views on institutional resources, governance and management,

114
especially in post-2004 university and HE colleges; in academics’ experience ofregulatory expectations, especially in post-1992 universities; in respondents’views on the academic profession; and in overall satisfaction). These
differences may largely reflect the origins, history and circumstances of the typesof higher education institution in which individual academics work; but, fifteen
years after the dissolution of the binary divide, it may be surprising to some thatsuch disparities persist. There are also signs of polarisation within bothpre-1992 universities and post-2004 universities and HE colleges in both roles
and views. These should be explored further by using more finely-tuned
methods than the broad brush CAP survey. Finally, academics’ overallsatisfaction appears to have declined since 1992, and a substantial minority has
considered leaving the profession. Further analyses will allow us to assess
whether there are differences in satisfaction according to age/career stage, gender,
grade and subject. Although increased levels of dissatisfaction may be no
surprise (Kinman & Jones, 2003; Bone & McNay, 2006), this finding should be asalutary warning to those responsible for the current conditions and future
prospects of the academic profession in the UK.

6. Follow-up Study
CHERI is aiming to undertake a qualitative study to follow up the key
findings of the survey and explore the underlying reasons for the changes
identified. It is likely that this will be based on institutional case studies,
involving in-depth semi-structured interviews with selected academic staff and
key institutional managers, as well as focus groups. A limited number ofinterviews with key government officials and policy makers is also proposed.
It may be possible to incorporate an international comparative element in thequalitative study, and indications of interest have already been received from the
CAP national research teams in Australia and Canada.

Acknowledgements
The UK CAP survey and its analysis would not have been possible without
the advice of Professor John Richardson and Alan Woodley, Associates of
CHERI, and the research assistance of Alice Bennion and Winnie Tang of
CHERI.

115

References
Bone, J., & McNay, I. (2006). Higher Education and the Human Good, Report of a
Consultation held at Sarum College, Salisbury, England, March 2005, Bristol：Tockington
Press.
Brennan, J., Locke, W., & Naidoo, R. (2007). United Kingdom: An Increasingly Stratified
Profession. In W. Locke, & U. Teichler. (eds.), The Changing Conditions for Academic
Work and Careers in Select Countries (pp.163-176). Kassel, Germany: International
Centre for Higher Education Research.
Bryson, C., & Barnes, N. (2000). Working in Higher education in the United Kingdom. In M.
Tight (ed), Academic Work and Life: What it is to be an academic, and how this ischanging, 1, London: Elsevier Science, 147-185.
Fulton, O. (1996). The Academic Profession in England on the Eve of Structural Reform. In
P.G. Altbach, & L.S. Lewis (eds.), The International Academic Profession: Portraits ofFourteen Countries, Special Report (pp.391-437). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kinman, G., & Jones, F. (2003). Running Up the Down Escalator: Stresses and Strains in UK
Academics. Quality in Higher Education, 9(1), 21-38.

117

Changes in the Finnish Academic Profession Reflect
Reforms in Higher Education

Timo Aarrevaara ∗ and Seppo Hölttä∗∗

Framework for the analysis of the Changing Academic Professionin Finland
Academic careers and mobility within the academic profession are
becoming increasingly interesting issues in Finland as the structure of the system
is changing and the complexity of the higher education system is increasing. In
his study in the late 1980s Burton Clark provides a framework for the analysis ofchange of the academic profession. Based on his study of the differentiation of
the academic profession in a comparative perspective he distinguishes three
dimensions of layering of the profession in different national settings (Clark, ed.,1987).
The first of these is the sheer extent of differentiation, the number ofrecognized major divisions. Till the mid-1990s, Finland was one of theextreme examples of uniform higher education systems, composed ofresearch-based public universities with equal formal status. The roots of theFinnish university and the Finnish academic profession are deeply in the German
model. All universities are research-based institutions and the roles of theacademic staff have been built around research activities. Even when
expansion of the higher education system started in the 1960s, the only model
discussed by political decision makers was the research university model (Hölttä,
2000). The single sector model imposed uniformity on the academic profession,∗

Research Director, Higher Education Group, Department of Management Studies, Universityof Tampere, Finland, e-mail: timo.aarrevaara@uta.fi.
∗∗
Professor and Head of Higher Education Group, Department of Management Studies,
University of Tampere, Finland, e-mail: seppo.holtta@uta.fi

118
too. All academic staff at universities have the formal status of civil servants.
In 2006 the university sector employed 7,780 persons classified as teachers.
Only establishment of the polytechnic sector, composed of universities ofapplied sciences, provided the start for a new and different sector of higher
education composed of professional and vocational higher education institutions.
It has grown rapidly and currently accommodates 45% of students. Because ofdifferent forms of ownership of the institutions, there is variation also in theemployment status of the academic staff. Some of the institutions arecharacterized by public ownership and some by private ownership. The total
number of full-time teaching staff in the polytechnic sector was 5,893 in 2006.
In the Finnish context, academic work at universities may be understood asa deep commitment to one’s discipline, a responsibility over certain tasks, andautonomy over one's own work. Academic organizations are not primarily
focused on how the work is done but on the results achieved, and those in theacademic profession define the degree of autonomy in academic work. This
picture of academic work seems to be changing in the first decade of the 21st
century (Aarrevaara, 2007). A global characteristic of academic work is
gradual loss of professional autonomy, pressure from external societal
expectations and increasing control of performance (Kogan & Teichler, 2007,
pp.13-14). The Finnish data reflect the pressure for increased orientation to a
network type of research with other universities and research institutes, appliedresearch and research with a social development function.
The establishment of the polytechnic sector has meant a major
diversification effect on the academic profession in Finland. In particular, theemergence and formation of a new kind of profession, with a professional andvocational background and commitments, has become an essential part of theFinnish analysis of the changing academic profession. That is why the
Changing Academic Profession survey takes place at a critical time. In the firstyears of the 21st century, efficiency in Finnish higher education has become acompetitive factor at both national and institutional levels, and there are several
structural development plans carried out during 2007-2008 in the university
sector as well as in the applied sciences university sector. The higher education
system is seen more concretely than before as an essential element of thenational and regional innovation systems. The link between higher educationand economic policies has been strengthened and made explicit by several
national policy initiatives and reforms both within the university and polytechnic
sectors.

119
The policy goals of improving the competitiveness of the two higher
education sectors are aimed at implementation, in particular by raising thequality of research and by improving the international attractiveness of
universities and universities of applied sciences. Higher education institutions
are being restructured to create larger units, to create a more focused profile for
institutions, and to encourage institutional cooperation, networking andinternationalization.
Higher education reforms include the reassessment of the financial andadministrative status of universities, and changes in the legislative status ofuniversities are expected to be enacted by the Parliament in 2009. Ongoingreforms also include mergers of universities and universities of applied sciences,changes in the governing system of the universities, overhauling of the steeringsystem for sector research, including sector research institutes, and a large
productivity program in the university sector carried out by the government.
The current trends of change can be summarised in tabular form (Table1).
The system level reforms which have all been authorised are currently being
implemented. They aim at making the Finnish higher education system a more
integral part of society. The reforms are directly linked with the national andEuropean goal of improving the competitiveness of higher education andresearch as well as that of industry.
It is significant that Finland has been included in this international survey
research at a time when crucial reforms are taking place in Finnish higher
education. The CAP study can provide comparative information for use in the
globalisation of Finnish academic work and labour markets.
Table 1. Trends in higher education reforms
Change in governance model

collegial
tripartite system→→managerial
stakeholders growing role

Legal status

public organisations→
with direct supervisionof governmentsemi-public public status
foundation
limited companies (assome universities ofapplied sciences)

Incentive system for individuals

regulated civil
servant’s status→

flexible annual work load
reward-based salarysystemAcademic roles and commitments

discipline based→

Mix of academic andsocial commitments

120
The second dimension of layering of the profession by sector is thefirmness and clarity of the division. Clark (1987, p.378) concludes that thedividing lines may be clear boundaries created by government or fuzzy andambiguous, typically generated by the market forces. Finland has created clear
boundaries between the university and polytechnic sector. The functions of theinstitutions have been clearly defined in legislation. All universities areresearch universities having also the right to grant doctoral degrees. The
universities of applied sciences were established as teaching-only institutions
with restricted applied research tasks attached to their regional service function.
Market forces are only now starting to affect the clarity of the division. The
facts that the institutional functions differ (academic vs. professional) and thatcredits are not transferable from one sector to another, combined with the excess
demand for study places, has quite effectively restricted competition not only
about students. Moreover, the academic labour markets have also remained
quite separate.
As the polytechnics sector was established mainly by merging former
professional secondary level institutions and by upgrading the quality of theirprogrammes to the level of higher education, academic staff were mainly
recruited from these institutions. In the beginning, only a small proportion of
the teachers had doctoral degrees. However, the establishment of new formal
academic requirements for the teachers has initiated a process of postgraduate
studies for polytechnic teachers at universities. An interesting part of theFinnish study will be to analyse how mobility across the sectoral boundaries
grows: academic qualifications in the form of degree requirements are not the
only obstacle making mobility difficult between the sectors.
The Act on Polytechnics defines the duties of a polytechnic and the type ofacademic staff which are employed. The Decree on Polytechnics further
defines the qualification requirements, stating that the teaching staff must havean academic degree, that the teachers of vocational or professional studies musthave a minimum of three years of work experience, and that principal lecturers
are required to have a postgraduate degree that meets certain criteria. Those
appointed as lecturers or principal lecturers in polytechnics must also havestudied pedagogy in a course providing at least 60 ECTS credit points (in 2008);
those who do not meet this requirement need to do so within three years of their
appointment. This system hinders quite effectively mobility from universities
to the polytechnic sector and job rotation even though there is closer
co-operation between the higher education sectors.

121
The third dimension of layering is the degree of homogeneity within the
declared or observed strata. As discussed, the university sector in Finland has
traditionally been characterized by extreme uniformity. During the period
when the present institutional structures were created as part of the massification
process, starting from the late 1960s, the Higher Education Development Act
included uniform and very detailed resource norms for each institution. For
example, the University of Helsinki, which had been the dominating higher
education institution in the country for centuries, and newly established small
universities, with the regional development tasks, were treated equally as
centralized development targets with quantitative resourse standards that were
defined in the late 1960s. Further, the establishment of all new positions atuniversities required a centralized process involving the Ministry of Education,and finally ended in Parliament as part of the annual budgeting process. This
heavy regulation effectively introduced uniformity also to the academic
profession.
Only, as the new performance-based government steering system wasestablished during the 1990s could the process of diversification within theuniversity sector start to proceed. The right to establish and fill all positions
without any external interference, flexible work loads for academic staff, lumpsum budgeting and performance-based budget allocation models havesignificantly affected the working environment of university personnel within
the last ten years or so. All these changes have introduced diversity among
universities and even within universities. The civil servant status has remained,
but the performance-based salary system, introduced in 2006, has diversified thesalary system. The coming extensive university reform, based on the new law,
will mean that each university will have a new legal status, some as publicorganizations with additional financial autonomy and some as private
foundations.
Diversity has been introduced to the polytechnic sector since its
establishment through diverse forms of ownership. Another source of diversity
can be found in the different institutional backgrounds representing different
vocational professions from engineering to nursing and social work. The
established institutions were the results of organizational mergers, but they werealso characterized by the amalgamations of, for example, different organizational
cultures and different salary systems. Internal integration processes haveproceeded but again they are faced with institutional mergers.
All these changes, which have increased diversity within the university andpolytechnic sectors, have strongly affected academic work and working

122
conditions within the institutions. So far, the major driving forces of change
have been changing government policy and steering strategy. Another factor
has been the changing funding structure. The share of external funding atuniversities has increased quite rapidly from a few percentage points in the early
1990s to about one-third today. The government policy of linking the higher
education system more tightly to the national and regional innovation systems
and the increased institutional autonomy, with its goal of making universities
more market oriented, will most probably be the most essential driving forces
behind the change of academic work within the coming years.

The Finnish CAP survey
It is evident, that the CAP survey provides information that can be utilized
in the mergers of higher education institutions, development of services and theplanning of operations during reforms. Many of the respondents found thequestionnaire very difficult, and they have asked a lot of defining questions. As
probably in all other countries involved, some of the questions in this large
questionnaire may seem somewhat inappropriate in the local context. Due tothe difficulties, the response rate had not reached an adequate level by the end of
the year 2007, and the Finnish team decided to continue to collect answers until
January 21st 2008.
It seems that for those academic professionals in the universities it had beeneasier to respond than for those in the universities of applied sciences. Ourinterpretation of the reasons behind the universities higher reply percentage
compared to universities of applied sciences, is that they have obtained more
knowledge of these issues due to the ongoing university reforms. Thus it has
been possible for university personnel to answer the questions better. Finland
has not been previously involved in such a large scale research on the change in
the academic profession.
The Finnish CAP team has carried out an on-line survey from the beginningof December 2007 to January 21st 2008 and mailed reminders to those who had
not replied on-line from February 1st to March 22nd 2008. The survey covered
19 of the 20 universities and 24 of the 28 universities of applied sciences. The
total number of respondents from universities is 1,128; and from universities ofapplied sciences 340. In all there are 1,468 respondents (1,192 by on-line
questionnaire, 276 in paper form) with a response rate of 28%. The
questionnaire was made available in both official languages, Finnish andSwedish, and also in English. Of the respondents, 86.5% replied in Finnish,123
7.5% in Swedish and 6.0% in English.
The Finnish CAP research has had since August 2007 a national steeringgroup that consisted of members from the Ministry of Education, the Rectors
Conference of Finnish Universities of Applied Sciences, the Finnish Union of
University Researchers and Teachers, the Finnish Council of University Rectors
and the Finnish Union of University Professors.
The questionnaire was processed using Webropol software and SPSS for
statistical information. CAP project information from respondents was given
mainly through web pages. Responding on paper was allowed in the second
stage in February-March 2008. Only two very small Universities of Arts, witha total of less than 100 teachers and researchers, were not included. The
Finnish CAP team defined the population in cooperation with the higher
education institutions and followed the CAP sampling process instructions. An
effective sample size according to international CAP recommendations was set
at 800 respondents. In practice, the higher education institutions gathered thee-mail addresses of all their salaried employees with teaching and research tasks,
as well as a separate list of occupational titles. On the basis of this list it isdifficult to determine how well the sample corresponds to the population.

Population of the two higher education sectors
The population consists of salaried full-time employees in teaching andresearch tasks, leaving part-time employees and lecturers outside the sample
population.
One-fifth of the population was selected.
The sample
corresponds well to the population and the different occupational groups arecomprehensively represented. The questionnaire was addressed to full-timeeducation and research personnel and one in five was selected. Typical titles
for respondents are researcher (N=316), lecturer (N=265), professor (N=150),
assistant (N=58), assistant professor (N=56), principal lecturers (N=52) and therest represent titles such as research manager. In the universities of appliedsciences some titles differ, and they include, for example, educational managers.
The sample corresponds well to the population and the different occupationalgroups are comprehensively represented. Senior post holders are well
represented, such as professors in the universities and principal lecturers in theuniversities of applied sciences.

124
Table 2. CAP sample and response rate in Finland December 2007–January 2008

Universities

QuestionnairesdeliveredResponses

Response
rate %

3902

1128

29

Universities of applied sciences

1303

340

26

Overall

5205

1468

28

The total number of respondents to the questionnaire was 1,468, with 1,128
employed at universities and 340 at universities of applied science. The
questionnaire was sent to all higher education institutions in Finland, with thesample population consisting of 3,902 employees from the university sector and
1,303 from universities of applied sciences. The percentage of non-response in
the inquiry was very high, which is common for surveys completely
implemented using ICT. Some of those who opened the questionnaire but did
not respond sent feedback via e-mail to the CAP team. The reasons for
non-response varied from lack of time and concern for the protection of the
respondents’ privacy to finding the questionnaire difficult. Of those on themailing list, about one-third did not open the message at all. Some of therecipients may have changed their jobs, but there are also those who had leave ofabsence, or were on sick leave or maternity leave and will have been included in
the loss unless they opened the questionnaire e-mail message. All those who
opened the message are included in the sample. These also include those who
had partially filled the questionnaire but did not return it. The number of those
who opened the questionnaire was clearly lower than number of questionnaires
sent, which would yield a higher response rate than 28 %.
The sample contains an almost equal number of men and women, so thatthe number of women (50.4%) in the sample is slightly greater than that of men(49.6%). It is typical in Finland that higher academic posts have more men
than women but in lower academic posts the proportions are inverted. For
example, slightly less than one-fourth (23.5%) of professors are female yet
51.4% of lecturers are women in the university sector (KOTA, 2008). Similarly,
41% of principal lecturers and 63% of lecturers are female in the universities ofapplied sciences (AMKOTA, 2007). The current material comprehensively
reflects this distribution. The average age of people working in universities islower than that for those working in universities of applied science. This is dueto the fact that the share of researchers was quite large among the respondents
from universities.

125

Respondents in traditional academic careers
Today, the typical entrance to the academic career at universities takes placethrough the system of the graduate school, i.e. formal PhD studies. It is
possible to seek graduate school research posts directly after completing thesecond cycle degree. At universities of applied sciences, teachers are generally
expected to have work experience before a teaching career so that the averageage of faculty staff posts at universities of applied science is higher than atuniversities. The difference has, however, decreased as universities of appliedscience have recruited people in great numbers over the past 15 years. The
average year of birth for respondents in the study is 1964.
About four out of five respondents (78.1%) were married, living together orin a registered companionship, and about one-third of them had a companion
who is also an academic. The father of about every third respondent (31.5%)
and the mother of about every fourth (25.2%) had a higher education degree.
The growth of higher education numbers is indicated in that more than half(57%) of the respondents’ companions had higher education degrees. Most of
the respondents’ companions (78.4%) were employed full-time, 8.3% part-timewith only 13% not employed. One respondent in two (51.1%) had no children:
every sixth respondent (16.4%) had one child, about every fifth two children(21.9%), and one in ten respondents (10.5%) had three or more children.
Managing their households takes up a considerable portion of the respondents’
time. About one in four (24.2%, N=329) has also interrupted their employment
in order to provide child or older person care, with about three out of four
(75.8%, N=1,030) of respondents having undertaken such responsibilities
About 16.2% (N=55) of the respondents from universities of appliedscience has a doctor’s degree, and about every fifth a licentiate’s degree(pre-doctoral postgraduate degree, N=72). Among the respondents in theuniversity sector 50.8% hold a doctor’s degree (N=574). At universities ofapplied sciences, the most common titles are lecturers (N=207) and principal
lecturers (N=73). The basic population also includes other teacher posts andR&D oriented posts. The number of teachers and researchers in universities ofapplied science in relation to the whole staff is lower than in universities. The
operating model at universities of applied science is clearly different from that ofuniversities, and there are fewer researcher positions in universities of appliedscience than in universities. The number of personnel providing support
services is greater than at universities, and lecturers are used in those tasks morethan at universities.

126
Typical university titles include professors (N=211), assistants (N=75),
lecturers (N=182), senior assistants (N=58), researchers (N=391) and seniorresearchers (N=72). Besides the traditional academic staff, universities also
have full-time researchers in projects and researchers from graduate schools.
The total proportion of these among the respondents was 41%, and they often
also have teaching tasks and participate in various projects together with otheracademic staff. The earlier common title for those in postgraduate researchposts was assistant, but the number of persons in this category has declined since
the establishment of the graduate school system in the mid-1990’s. Assistantposts have largely been replaced at universities by researcher’s tasks that may
include teaching and even administrative duties.
The main task of researchers in graduate schools is to finalize their doctoral
theses and complete studies, but they are full-time employees and they are paidsalaries based on labour agreements. This manner of operation has proved to
be an efficient way to recruit people for academic careers. About half of the
respondents to the questionnaire have concluded an employment agreement that
includes teaching or research work during their researcher education, and morethan half of the respondents have participated in research projects with the seniorresearchers of the department. University researchers and teachers have beenworking longer in higher education institutions than the respondents fromuniversities of applied science. This is partially explained by the relatively
short history of the polytechnic sector. On the other hand, respondents fromuniversities of applied science possess wider experience from working inindustries, as entrepreneurs, or in the public sector.
A reward-based salary system has been established since 2006 to improve
efficiency in universities. This reform, too, is part of the larger salary reform
covering the whole government. Salaries at universities are composed of two
components. The first is based on an evaluation of how demanding are theduties of a position, and the second and smaller is based on evaluation ofacademic performance.
The respondents’ average annual income from their main occupation wasapproximately €41,500. However, the differences between different tasks weresignificant. The average income of those working in universities of appliedscience was higher than those in the university sector. This does not necessarilymean that the wages in universities of applied science would be better than inuniversities over a person’s whole career. This sample has many respondents
employed in the lower researcher posts in universities and this reduces theaverage income for the university sector. Income from the primary occupation

127
is not equal to annual income, because many respondents also have secondary
sources of income. There are clear rules for this manner of operation, and they
apply to all within the academic profession. It is quite common to apply for
permission for a secondary post by using an announcement procedure or a
special permit. Respondents in both universities and universities of appliedscience have significant secondary income, and this applies especially to those intechnical and medical professions irrespective of the phase of their careers.
Those representing humanities and arts have the least amounts of secondary
income.
For the whole academic profession in Finland, the high number of working
hours limits possibilities for side income. The average number of working
hours is greater during teaching periods and smaller outside the teaching periods,
but always more than 40 hours a week. The respondents in universities ofapplied science show far higher numbers of working hours than those inuniversities during teaching periods. Measured over the whole year, however,the situation becomes much more equal. Nearly all fields have adopted total
annual working times, for which the standard is 1,600 hours. Members of theacademic profession jointly agree with their employer on the tasks that constitutethe total working time. On the basis of the survey data it seems evident that theannual working time is exceeded throughout the sector.

Expanding Third Task
The main driving force behind the changing profession in Finland is thenational higher education policy and its links to the social and economic
developments in the country. Regional tasks have been included in the basic
tasks for the universities of applied sciences since their establishment. Finnish
representatives of the academic profession act in different sectors of society andin professional associations of their own fields, and this operation also receives
incentives. The legislation regarding universities and universities of appliedscience contains a “third task”. For universities this means an obligation tointeract with the surrounding society and strengthen the impact of researchfindings and artistic activities on society.
The importance of service production to society and the ability ofuniversities to operate effectively in the market place with commercialorganisations has been the main reason for the establishment of the legal statusof universities. The academic profession has been, however, quite slow in its
responses. Although a couple of years ago it was made possible for universities

128
to establish so-called university companies, it did not lead to the processes of
establishing research based enterprises owned by universities. It looks as if
entrepreneurship at Finnish universities is more like individual entrepreneurship,
individual consultancy by professors, instead of organisational entrepreneurshipin the sense used by Burton Clark (1998).
The national higher education reforms affect the academic profession
acutely. Two models for the legal status are under preparation, i.e. status as apublic entity with increased financial autonomy and a foundation model under
the private law. Diverse models of legal status have already been implemented
within the polytechnic sector. Universities of applied sciences may havedifferent status, from associations of municipalities to private foundations andcompanies. A second set of central ongoing reforms is composed of structuralreforms within both sectors of the higher education system.

Auspicious foundation for further analysis
As part of the legislative changes, reform of the governing system of theuniversities, including the steering system of government sectoral research
institutes, is going on. To adjust the public sector to the changing operational
environment, including globalisation and population changes, government iscarrying out a large productivity programme covering all sectors. Although asteady growth has continued within the university sector, the implementation of
the productivity programme has affected staffing through adjustments andoutsourcing of certain service functions of institutions.
The reporting of the Finnish CAP team has concentrated on four themes.
The first part discussed the factors for change on the academic profession in
Finland in a report published in the summer in 2007 (Aarrevaara & Hölttä, 2007).
The second part as described in this paper (in early 2008) analyses the realizationof the sample and describes the profiles of those who answered the questionnaire.
A third part of the reporting will deal with the analysis of the replies. This phasewill be implemented during the first half of 2008, in cooperation with theresearchers and administrative professionals who participated in gathering thematerial. In a fourth part the Finnish CAP team will carry out a comparison
with the international material later in 2008.
The most extensive reform of higher education in decades has recently been
started in Finland. Institutional structures as well as the legal status will bechanged. These changes will affect the operating environment of the higher
education institutions and the conditions for academic work. From the Finnish

129
perspective, the timing of the CAP survey is timely and even ideal and the study
can support the implementation of changes both at the national and institutional
levels. International comparisons can supply a critical assessment of different
aspects of changing academic work as the higher education system and its work
are pressured by society and markets.

References
AMKOTA (2007). AMK-sector database by the Ministry of Education, Finland.
Aarrevaara, T. (2007). Enhancing Universities in Finland. The Journal of Finance andManagement in Colleges and Universities, 4, 261-292.
Aarrevaara, T., & Hölttä, S. (2007). Finland – Massification, Steering-By-Results and New
Divisions of Labour. In W. Locke, & U. Teichler (eds.), The Changing Conditions for
Academic Work and Careers in Select Countries. INCHER.

Werkstattberichte 66.

University of Kassel.
Clark, B.R. (ed.) (1987). The Academic Profession – National, Disciplinary, and Institutional
Settings. London: University of California Press.
Clark, B.R. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways ofTransformation. IAU Press, Pergamon.Guilford, Surrey.
Hölttä, S. (2000). From Ivory Towers to Regional networks in higher education governance.
European Journal of Education, 35(4), 465-474.
Kogan, M., & Teichler, U. (2007). Key challenges to the academic profession and its interface
with management – some introductory thoughts. In M. Kogan, & U. Teichler (eds.), Key
challenges to the academic profession. Paris-Kassel: Unesco-forum on higher education,
research and knowledge and INHER-Kassel. Werkstattberichte.
KOTA (2008). Statistical data on Universities and fields of education. Maintained by Ministryof Education, Finland.

131

Academic Staff in Germany: per aspera ad astra?

Ulrich Teichler∗

1.

Introduction

1.1 Junior Academic Careers in Germany: Exceptionally Precarious?
Germany belongs to those countries where an academic career consolidates
only several years after the award of a doctorate (cf. the comparative studies onacademic careers in Enders, 2001; Enders & De Weert, eds., 2004; Sadlak, ed.,2004). On average, academics are slightly older than 40 years at the time of
appointment to a senior position and, as a rule, this is the time when they knowwhether they can spend their total career as academics. Thus, uncertainty
prevails at ages of up to 40 years, i.e. at a time of their lives when others havealready established regular careers, taken care of long-term accommodation, andhave had children. The relatively harsh conditions for junior academics (cf.
Bracht & Teichler, 2006) are assumed to be necessary notably due to two factors:
・ the need for a long formative period of concurrent learning and productive
academic work;・ a highly selective profession where most of those who are not promoted tosenior ranks have to leave the profession.
In Germany, a widespread belief exists that the situation of junior academic
staff is more difficult than in many other countries. This starts with a semantic
divide: academics in senior ranks belong to the occupational category
Hochschullehrer (higher education teachers) and those not in senior ranks towissenschaftliche Mitarbeiter (academic staff), whereby no overarching∗

Professor, International Centre for Higher Education Research, University of Kassel,
Germany, e-mail: teichler@incher.uni-kassel.de

132
professional term exists such as ‘academic profession’ in the English language.
Academics are expected as a rule to pass the Habilitation, i.e. an advanced
doctorate based on about five years of academic work after the doctorate, inorder to be eligible for a university professor’s position. Prior to appointment
as a senior professor, the research, teaching and examination activities of junioracademic staff are undertaken under the supervision of senior academics. As arule, junior staff are not permitted to be appointed to a professor’s position in thesame university in which they have been employed in the career stage between
the doctoral award and the professorship (Hausberufungsverbot). These andother features contribute to a strong feeling of dependence and uncertainty. In
the Carnegie Study on the academic profession undertaken in the early 1990s,
German junior academics stood out in rating their employment and work
conditions substantially less positive than university professors in their country
and in expressing a substantially lower job satisfaction (see Teichler, 1996;
Enders & Teichler, 1997).
One has to bear in mind, though, that reforms were undertaken to make theperiod between a doctorate and the appointment to a senior profession more
attractive. The title of an Assistenz-Professor was awarded from the 1970s to
the mid-1980s and that of a Junior-Professor since the early years of this century,
both combined with a higher degree of independence than the respective
positions until the 1960s and from the mid-1980s to the early years of thiscentury. Moreover, there are indications that Germans consider the professionalsituation of junior academics in Germany more negatively than is justified. A
recent study comparing available data on academic careers in Germany and the
U.S. (Janson, Schomburg & Teichler, 2007), for example, points out that German
junior academics have a much better chance to be regularly employed by auniversity while working on their doctoral thesis; a higher proportion of them arealready permanently employed before being appointed to a senior position, andthe salary levels of junior positions are not lower when compared to senior
positions than in the U.S.
The following analysis will address selected issues of employment, workand self-understanding of academic staff at German universities and publicresearch institutes.
・ Differences will be explored between junior academic staff not yet
awarded a doctoral degree and those awarded a doctoral degree.
・ The study will also address the situation of academic staff employed atuniversities beyond the typical periods to qualify for a doctorate or a

133
Habilitation: how does their employment and work situation differ fromthat of junior staff?
・ The study will take note of the differences between academic staff atuniversities and at public research institutes.
・ A comparison between junior academics and professors (and other seniorstaff) will help to highlight the specifics of the situation of the academic
staff.
・ In some cases, the situation of academic staff at German universities in2007 will be compared to the situation of 1992, when the first international
comparative study of the academic profession was undertaken.
Comparison of the situation of academic staff in Germany with that of othercountries in 2007 was not possible because the international data set was notavailable when this analysis had to be completed.
1.2 Basic Information on Academic Careers in Germany
Until recently, students in Germany were on average 28 years old at thetime of graduation from a university programme, whereby the German university
degrees were considered internationally as equivalent to master’s degrees. This
figure includes students who began their study at a mature age as well as students
who had been de facto part-time students. The title of doctor was awarded on
average at the age of 33 and the Habilitation at the age of 40. The average ageof the appointment to a professorial position (equivalent to professor andassociate professor positions in the U.S.) was 41.
According to comparative statistics, the rate of doctoral awards in Germany,i.e. almost two percent of the respective age group, is the highest among major
economically advanced countries. One has to bear in mind, though, that thisfigure includes those medical doctorates which are based on a substantiallysmaller piece of research than the usual doctoral theses.
The majority of doctoral candidates are regular employees of universities
and public research institutes while working on their dissertations – many ofthem are employed part-time; they might hold positions furnished by theuniversity or research institute or positions paid for with the help of research
grants. Others have ancillary teaching and research contracts at universities orare awarded a doctoral fellowship. Only a small minority are self-paying
doctoral candidates. Most doctoral candidates are supervised by individual
professors, while only a minority are incorporated into a doctoral programmewith elements similar to U.S. graduate schools and programmes.

134
The award of a doctoral degree is not primarily a more or less safe step
towards a senior position in academia. The majority of those with doctorates
move to positions outside higher education institutions and public research
institutes, and only somewhere between 10% and 15% eventually will be insenior positions in higher education and public research institutes.
Most academic staff at universities are employed on short-term contracts: up
to two five-year periods in university positions and often for shorter periods inpositions covered by research grants. Only a small minority are employed for
longer periods, and some of them remain without appointment to a senior
position. Altogether, about 30% of German academic staff at universities not insenior positions have a permanent contract.
Professors are appointed, as a rule, full-time and permanent – in most cases
as civil servants. Part-time teaching in the professorial ranks is wide-spread,but these persons, as a rule, are not employed by the university and are notregular members with respective rights and duties.
The two professorial ranks at universities cannot be viewed as a clear career
ladder as many professors are appointed to the higher rank from the very
beginning. Moreover, in contrast to Fachhochschulen, there is no internal
promotion scheme from the lower ranking to the higher ranking professorial
position at German universities: a lower-ranking professor will move to a higher
ranking professor position only if she or he gets a ‘call’ from another university.
Most information on academic careers in Germany focuses on universities.
However, in addition to about 140,000 academics employed at universities, morethan 3,000 are active in colleges of fine arts, about 20,000 in Fachhochschulen(translated as “universities of applied sciences”), i.e. colleges primarily in chargeof teaching, and almost 30,000 in public research universities not in charge ofteaching and not entitled to award doctoral degrees.
Actually, theFachhochschulen do not award doctoral degrees and rely on the universities totrain junior academics for their professorial positions. It is often overlookedthat about 40% of all professor positions at German higher education institutions(about 14,000 of altogether 38,000) are located at Fachhochschulen. The publicresearch institutes, as a rule, are viewed as privileged places both for academic
staff and senior academics. Many senior academics are appointed byuniversities as regular professors, though without salary, entitled to teach if theywish to do so and entitled to be supervisors of dissertations.

135
1.3 The Survey
The following study is based on a representative survey of the academic
profession at German institutions of higher education and public research
institutes (Max Planck Society, Fraunhofer Society, Leibniz Society, Helmholtz
Association). The survey was undertaken from January to July 2007 in theframework of the international comparative study “The Changing Academic
Profession”.
The questionnaire was sent to more than 4,000 addresses at a selected
number of institutions seen to represent the overall system appropriately. The
study aimed to address only regularly employed, academically trained persons
active in departments in charge of teaching and/or research. Thus, it does notaddress part-time staff on other contracts (i.e. for conducting single courses),
those teaching without remuneration, ancillary teaching and research staff as wellas academically trained staff employed in the general administration or in
specific service units.
Altogether, 1,524 persons responded. The response rate is about 35%.
Among the respondents,
・
・
・
・
・

326 were professors (senior ranks) at universities,
547 other academic staff at universities,
136 seniors at public research institutes,
300 other academic staff at public research institutes, and
215 academics (mostly professors) at Fachhochschulen.

One has to bear in mind that the sampling procedure deliberately called foran over-representation of professors and seniors compared to other academic
staff as well as for an over-representation of academics from public research
institutes as compared to those from higher education institutions. This
procedure was chosen in order to secure a sufficient absolute number per staff
category, gender and field of study even in the relatively smaller sectors. In the
final analysis of the data, this over-proportionate representation can becounter-balanced by a respective weighing of the various sub-groups. This
does not play any role, however, in the subsequent data analysis of this article,
because only percentages and means are presented for the above named
sub-groups.

136

2.

Career and Employment

2.1 Career Stages Prior to Senior Position
According to official statistics, the total number of professors in positions
comparable to full professors and associate professors is about 19,000 inGermany. About 14,000 were in positions by and large comparable to assistantprofessors or other middle-level positions. About 4,000 were lecturers for
specific purposes (i.e. outside the career track towards a professorship), andabout 102,000 were academic staff employed for purposes of research andpossibly teaching and services.
There are no data available indicating the proportion of academics below
senior positions at the various stages of the academic career. Of the 547
respondents to this survey, 36% (198) were not (yet) awarded a doctoral degree.
We have reasons to assume that the actual proportion of academics at this career
stage employed at German universities is higher, but no reliable statistics areavailable.
Most of those employed without a doctorate, either are awarded thedoctorate within a few years or leave the universities without such a qualification.
The number of those still employed without a doctorate 7-9 years after
graduation corresponds to less than 30% of those employed 4-6 years after
graduation. The number of those still employed without a doctorate 10-12
years after graduation corresponds to less than even 10% of those employed 4-6
years after graduation. A few of them have transferred to service functions, but
are employed for longer periods for research and teaching tasks.
Of the academic staff at German universities with a doctoral degree andresponding, 47% had graduated more than 12 years ago. The available datasuggest that more than half of the academic staff with doctoral degrees continue
to be employed at universities beyond the period typically considered to benecessary to qualify for a professorship. And more than half of these
longer-term employed academic staff members with a doctoral degree are
employed on a permanent contract. While it is generally believed that
academics either succeed in becoming professors or have to leave the university,
the actual proportion of academics with a doctoral degree persisting in auniversity beyond the formative years for a professorship is by no means
negligible.
It should be added that academic staff at public research institutes have asubstantially higher chance to ‘survive’ in this sector beyond the typicalformative periods of qualification for a higher career level than their peers in the137
university sector. The proportion of those employed at public research
institutes in academic staff positions beyond the typical formative years is morethan twice as high as in the universities both among those without and those witha doctoral degree.
2.2 Other Activities
The majority of those professionally active in academia for long periods do
not change their professional sector at all. However, the 1992 survey did showthat a relatively high proportion of professors in Germany had professional
experience outside academia.
According to the 2007 survey, academic staff with a doctoral degree
employed in non-professorial positions at universities have spent on average
about 6% of the period since graduation in employment outside academia. On
average, they were not employed for about 12% of that period (e.g., working on
their dissertation with the help of a fellowship or private means, predominantly
active in family and child care, unemployed or active in job search, etc.).
The university professors responding have been professionally active
outside universities, on average, for more than four years. On average, they
have spent:・・・・

1.9 years at public research institutes;
0.9 years at other institutions of the public sector;
1.2 years in private institutions (including possibly activities in R&D); and0.3 years being self-employed.

Longest periods of work outside universities are reported by professors ofengineering (10.7 years), where the majority of professors had previously been
employed outside universities. Above average occupational experience outside
universities are also stated by professors in natural sciences (often in publicresearch institutes), education and fine arts.
It should be added that professors at German Fachhochschulen are expected,
as part of the official entry qualification, to have worked at least three years after
their doctoral degrees outside academia in a professional area relevant to thestudy programme of their teaching assignment. Actually, the respondents
employed at Fachhochschulen state that they have been employed 6.7 years
full-time, on average, outside higher education, including less than one year at
public research institutions and almost 6 years outside academia.

138
2.3 Employment Conditions of Academic Staff
Full-time versus part-time employment and working time
As already pointed out, the employment situation of junior academic staff atuniversities is inferior to those transferring to regular graduate jobs after
graduation. Other surveys have shown that about five years after graduation
more than 80% of professionally active graduates in Germany are employedfull-time and that more than 70% of employees have a permanent contract at thatearly stage of their career (see e.g., Schomburg & Teichler, 2006).
Most universities offer part-time employment, most frequently a half-time
position, to junior academic staff without a doctoral degree. The young
academics are entitled to spend a proportion of their working time on theirdissertations, but they are expected as well to spend additional unpaid time forthat purpose. Given this ‘norm’, it is surprising to note, as Table 1 shows, thatabout half of academic staff without a doctoral degree employed by theuniversity within six years after graduation are actually employed full-time. In
fields where universities cannot attract junior staff easily, for example inmedicine, engineering and business studies, persons not yet awarded a doctoral
degree are frequently offered full-time positions. Moreover, some junior staff,
paid half-time through the university budget, get additional income throughresearch grants. Finally, some contracts solely based on research funds areoffered as full-time positions.
The academics employed without a doctoral degree at universities reportthat they spend actually 37 hours per week on average on their academic work,and those at public research institutes report 39 hours on average, as Table 2
shows.
Table 1 shows as well that more than 80% of academic staff with a doctoral
degree are employed full-time. This corresponds more or less to the situationof graduates in other professional areas. The average number of weekly hours
spent on the job is 42 hours (40 hours on average among those employed at
public research institutes). The actual working time reported is about 15%
higher than the paid working time.
In comparison, more or less all professors at universities and senioracademics at public research institutes are employed full-time. Arrangementsfor part-time employment positions are made only if professors want toundertake a second major professional assignment alongside. The university
professors report that they spend on average about 52 hours per week on theirjob (55 hours during lecture periods and 48 hours outside lecture periods).

139
Table 1. Full-time Employment at German Institutions of Higher Education
and Public Re-search Institutes 2007, by Academic Rank and Years
Elapsed since Graduation (%)
Higher education
institutions

Research
institutes

49
62
52
82
87
84

38
88
54
84
92
89

97
99
94

88
96

Academic staff at universities
Without PhD, up to 6 years since graduation
Without PhD, 7 and more years
Without PhD, allWith PhD, up to 12 years
With PhD, 13 and more years
With PhD, allProfessors at universities / seniors
Lower rank
Higher rank
At Fachhochschulen

Table 2. Actual Weekly Working Hours of the Academic Profession in Germany 2007
University professors
Directors of research institutes
Academic staff at universities with PhD
Academic staff at research institutes with PhD
Academic staff at universities without PhD
Academic staff at research institutes without PhD
Professors and academic staff at Fachhochschulen

52
44
42
40
37
40
40

Table 3. Gross Income at German Institutions of Higher Education and Public
Research Insti-tutes 2007, by Academic Rank and Years Elapsed
Since Graduation (1,000 Euro)

Academic staff at universities
Without PhD, up to 6 years
Without PhD, 7 and more years
Without PhD, allWith PhD, up to 12 years
With PhD, 13 and more years
With PhD, allProfessors at universities / seniors
Lower rank
Higher rank
At Fachhochschulen

Higher education
institutions
Actual Full-time
equivalent

Research institutes

29
40
31
44
53
47

24
55
31
45
61
55

65
82
58

38
48
39
46
54
49

Actual Full-time
equivalent

70
99

34
57
40
46
61
55

140
These data correspond more or less to those reported 15 years earlier in the firstinternational comparative study on the academic profession. In contrast,
directors and other senior persons at public research institutes report only aweekly working time of 44 hours and academics at Fachhochschulen 40 hours
on average.
Position and income
As one might expect, almost all academic staff members without a doctoral
degree get a salary typical for entry positions of university graduates in the
public sector. Only 7% of those employed at universities and 30% of those
employed in public research institutions are at a higher position on the salaryscale. This holds true almost exclusively for those who have graduated morethan 6 years before the survey was conducted.
Most academic staff having been awarded a doctoral degree are also
employed in positions equivalent to entry positions and salaries in the public
sector. As a consequence, only 30% of academic staff at universities with adoctoral degree are in higher positions than the entry level.
Academic staff at German universities without a doctoral degree reported anannual average gross income of about €29,000 during the first few years after
graduation, as Table 3 shows. This can be viewed as corresponding to one thirdof the average gross income of full professors. Full-time employed academic
staff in this early career stage stated an average income of about €38,000, i.e.
almost 45% of the income of full professors. The calculation takes into
consideration that most junior staff are employed as employees holding the samelegal status in the public and private sectors while almost all professors are civil
servants who pay almost 10% of their gross income less for social benefits.
Academic staff awarded a doctoral degree who are in the typical age andcareer stage of junior academics state an average income of about €44,000. As
most of them are employed full-time, the average income for those full-time
employed is only moderately higher, i.e. about €46,000. This corresponds toslightly more than half of the average income of full professors.
Academic staff with a doctoral degree who continue to be employed atuniversities beyond 12 years after graduation are often promoted to advanced
ranks. Therefore, their average income is almost 20% higher than that of young
academic staff with a doctoral degree.
In comparison, Table 3 shows as well that lower ranking university
professors earn slightly less than 80% of the average income of full professors.
About 15% of the income difference is explained by the salary scale; the residual

141
difference of more than 5% is due to the fact that only full professors could
negotiate income supplements in the remuneration system prevailing until 2002,
and this was still valid for most of the professors at the time of the survey.
It should be added that academic staff at public research institutes and who
have been employed there for longer periods report a clearly higher average
income than their peers at universities. This is in part due to longer average
periods of service and in part due to a higher likelihood of promotion toadvanced positions. Senior academics at research institutes have a clearlyhigher average income than university professors. This reflects in part the fact,that most of them are not civil servants and have to pay higher costs for social
benefits. Moreover, most of them in positions similar to full professors are
more highly remunerated for their academic achievements, while only about one
fifth of the full professors at universities got supplementary income in the
remuneration system existing until recently, and that is still valid for mostprofessors.
It should be noted that academic staff in Germany have hardly any
additional income beyond their salary. Academic staff without a doctoral
degree, both those employed at universities and at public research institutes,
report a side-income of 2% on average; and academic staff with a doctoral
degree state 4% and 3% respectively. Similarly, directors and other seniors at
public research institutes state additional income of 3% on average. In contrast,
university professors earn 14% additionally and academics at Fachhochschulen
16% on average.
Permanent versus short-term employment contracts
The most striking difference in the employment conditions between junioracademic staff and the majority of university graduates of about the same age isthe job security. More than 70% of all German university graduates have apermanent contract a few years after graduation, which ensures long-term
employment if they work successfully and – in the case of private employers – if
the company does not have to lay off substantial numbers of staff. Table 4shows how this contrasts with the situation in universities.
・ Only 1% of academic staff at universities without a doctoral degree have apermanent contract within the first six years after graduation. And only
one-quarter get a permanent contract if they stay on beyond these six years
without being awarded a doctoral degree.
・ Only 18% of academic staff at universities awarded a doctoral degree are142already permanently employed in the typical time span after graduation,
which can be viewed as preparatory for a Habilitation and professorship.
・ Altogether, more than 30% of the academic staff at German universities
have a permanent contract according to the survey undertaken in 2007.
This is slightly higher than the respective proportion in 1992. Most
academic staff at universities with a permanent contract are persons with adoctoral degree who have been employed at universities for a lengthy
period (i.e. those who have graduated more than 12 years ago).
At public research institutes, a higher proportion of academic staff have apermanent working contract. Though also most of those employed only a few
years have a short-term contract, the proportion of those having a permanentcontract is higher than at universities in all the categories discussed. As was
already pointed out, more than 95% of senior academics in the German higher
education and public research system are permanently employed.
At
universities, almost all of them are civil servants whose life-time employment isguaranteed.
Table 4. Permanent Employment at Institutions of Higher Education andPublic Research Institutes 2007, by Academic Rank and Years
Elapsed since Graduation (%)

Academic staff at universities
Without PhD, up to 6 years
Without PhD, 7 and more years
Without PhD, allWith PhD, up to 12 years
With PhD, 13 and more years
With PhD, allProfessors at universities / seniors
Lower rank
Higher rank
At Fachhochschulen

3.

Higher education
institutions

Research
institutes

1
24
3
18
71
39

2
84
31
28
91
67

95
98
94

100
96

Aspects of Learning and Work

3.1 The Context of Doctoral WorkIn Germany, the view spread since about the 1990s is that academics will bebetter prepared for their academic assignment, if the doctoral dissertation is no143
longer based on isolated work of an individual candidate supervised only by anindividual professor. Rather, some type of programme, with a select number ofcourses, involvement of more than a single professor and communication andpossibly cooperation among doctoral candidates, would be desirable. In themean time, between 10% and 20% of doctoral candidates work on their doctoral
dissertations in the framework of doctoral programmes. Moreover, a stronger
emphasis is placed in recent years on the independent work of doctoralcandidates.
The 2007 survey is a snap shot. It does not provide direct information onchange over time. However, we might assume that the retrospective view ofacademic staff with a doctoral degree on their experiences during the period ofwork on their dissertation as compared to the retrospective view of university
professors indicates whether changes have occurred over time.
Actually,・ 32% of the academic staff with a doctoral degree working at universities
respond affirmatively that they “received intensive faculty guidance for
their work on their thesis”; former university professors note this slightly
less often (29%);
・ only 13% of academic staff report that doctoral candidates have been“required to take a prescribed set of courses”; this is even a lower
proportion than among the university professors (16%);
・ 70% of the academic staff state that doctoral candidates “generally choose
their own thesis topic”; this proportion is similar to that of the university
professors (68%);
・ 42% of the academic staff report that they have been involved in research
projects with other academics during the period of work on thedissertation; the respective proportion was only 34% among persons now
in the position of university professors.
Altogether, the findings do not confirm the view that the environment inwhich the work on the doctoral thesis takes place has changed substantially inGermany in recent years. Only in one respect, a noteworthy change is visible:
an increasing number of doctoral candidates are already involved incollaborative research while writing their dissertations.

144
3.2 Teaching
Teaching assignments of junior academic staff are on the one hand both‘productive work’ as well as a learning process for a future role as a university
professor. On the other hand, teaching assignments are viewed as a burden,
reducing time possibly devoted to a doctoral thesis, a Habilitation thesis andother research activities. According to the comparative study on the academic
profession undertaken in the early 1990s, junior academic staff spent
substantially less time on teaching (and teaching-related activities) on averagethan junior staff in other countries. While German junior staff on average spenta lower proportion of their working time on teaching than on research, juniorstaff in the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Sweden
spent a higher proportion of their working time on teaching than on research.
Table 5 shows that the proportion of working time spent on teaching by juniorstaff in Germany in 1992 was only half as much as that spent on teaching byuniversity professors.
Table 5 suggests that substantial changes have occurred by 2007.
・ Academic staff now spend somewhat more time on teaching: theproportion of overall time increased from 18% to 21%.
・ University professors reduced their time spent on teaching substantially infavour of reserving more time for research. The proportion of time spent onteaching declined from 35% to 27%.
As a consequence, the gap between junior staff and professors as far as timespent on teaching has been substantially reduced.
Table 5. Proportion of Time Spent on Teaching and Teaching-related Activities
at German Universities 1992 and 2007 (%)
Academic staff
When classes are in session
When classes are not in session
Altogether (estimated)
Professors
When classes are in session
When classes are not in session
Altogether (estimated)

1992

2007

21
12
18

26
13
21

43
20
35

34
16
27

Actually, academic staff still in their formative years, spend – according to
the 2007 survey – 19% of the working time in the domain of teaching. Those

145
having been employed for longer periods are somewhat more strongly involvedin teaching: academic staff not awarded a doctoral degree who graduated morethan six years ago report that they spend 21% of their working time in thisdomain, and those awarded a doctoral degree who graduated more than 12 years
ago spend 25% of working time on teaching and teaching-related activities, i.e.
almost the same proportion as university professors.
3.3 Working Conditions
Academic staff members at German universities rate somewhat positively
most of the resources for their academic work. On average, most aspects are
rated between 2.3 and 2.9 on a scale between 1 = “excellent” and 5 = “very bad”.
Of the 12 aspects addressed in 2007, 8 had been posed in the 1992
questionnaire. Actually, the responses in 2007 were almost identical on averageto those of 1992; only office rooms were assessed more positively in 2007 than
15 years earlier.
It is interesting to note that academic staff at German universities on
average rate the resources for their work more or less identically as university
professors do. This holds true both for 1992 and 2007. In 1992, however,university professors assessed secretarial support more positively than academic
staff, but this difference has more or less disappeared in 2007. Altogether, thesefindings suggest that academic staff at German universities do not feel
disadvantaged as far as access to resources for teaching and research isconcerned.
Table 6 shows that academic staff without a doctoral degree rate theresources for academic work somewhat more favourably than academic staff
holding a doctoral degree. Obviously, the latter have higher expectations in thisrespect.
Moreover, it is interesting to note that the resources for academic work areassessed similarly in 1992 and 2007. Taking into account the widespreadcomplaints in the German higher education system in recent years about lack offunds and resources for academic work, one could have expected a decline ofpositive ratings. Also, the majority of academics at German universities
themselves argued that the working conditions at German universities haveworsened since they had started their academic career. On a scale from 1 =“substantially better” to 5 = “substantially worse”, the university professors rated
the situation on average as 3.7 and the academic staff at universities as 3.6.
The most striking finding of Table 6, however, is visible in comparison
between universities and public research institutes. Academic staff at public

146
research institutes rate the resources for academic work substantially better thanthose employed at universities. Similarly, senior academics at the publicresearch institutes consider their resources for academic work clearly morefavourably than university professors. This mirrors the widespread notion
among experts that the public research institutes in Germany certainly aresubstantially better resourced for academic work than the universities.
Table 6. Assessment of Resources by Academic Staff at German Universities
and Public Research Institutes 2007 (mean of a scale from 1 =“excellent” to 5 = “poor”)
Without

Universities
With

Research institutes
Without
With

PhD

PhD

All

PhD

PhD

All

Classrooms

2.3

2.7

2.6

2.1

2.2

2.2

Technology for teaching

2.3

2.7

2.5

1.7

2.1

2.0

Laboratories

2.4

2.7

2.6

1.8

1.6

1.6

Research equipment/instruments

2.3

2.6

2.5

1.7

1.5

1.5

Computer facilities

2.1

2.4

2.2

1.6

1.6

1.6

Library facilities and services

2.4

2.7

2.6

1.9

2.0

2.0

Your office space

2.1

2.5

2.3

1.9

1.9

1.9

Secretarial support

2.5

3.1

2.9

2.1

2.4

2.3

Telecommunications

1.6

1.9

1.8

1.4

1.5

1.5

Teaching support staff

3.1

3.6

3.4

2.5

3.2

3.0

Research support staff

3.0

3.4

3.2

2.4

2.4

2.4

Research funding

3.0

3.6

3.4

2.3

2.2

2.2

4. Values and Overall Assessment
4.1 Preference for Teaching or Research
It is widely assumed that German academics are strongly research-minded
and consider teaching mostly as a secondary duty or even as an undesirable
burden. The first international comparative study on the academic profession,
however, showed that most academics in all countries surveyed appreciate a link
between teaching and research, even though the majority have a stronger leaning
towards research. The survey conducted in the early 1990s showed surprisingly,that an emphasis on teaching or at least a stronger leaning towards teaching wasmore widespread among German university professors (35%) than amongprofessors of other European countries (22-27%). Actually, a high regard forteaching was least common in Japan in the early 1990s (9%). In contrast, thesurvey of the early 1990s has shown that preferences stated by professors and147
academic staff in Germany differed more strongly in Germany than in othercountries: the academic staff was more strongly research-oriented.
Table 7 shows that the preferences of academic staff at German universities
in 2007 were quite similar to those of their predecessors 15 years earlier.
However, the attitudes of university professors have moved somewhat towards
research. As a consequence, notably the proportion of those primarily leaning
towards research has remained higher among academic staff than amongprofessors, but the difference has become smaller.
Table 7. Comparison of Interests of Academics at German Universities in
Teaching and Research, 1992 and 2007

Primarily in teaching
In both, but leaning towards teaching
In both, but leaning towards researchPrimarily in research
Total

Academic staff
1992
2007
6
7
22
22
46
41
26
30
100
100

Professors
1992
2007
5
7
30
20
59
59
7
14
100
100

It might be added that a primary research-orientation of academic staff
without a doctoral degree (33%) is somewhat higher than among academic staff
with a doctoral degree (27%). The socialization process of the academic career
seems to comprise a growing appreciation of teaching over time and with career
stages.
4.2 Disciplinary versus Institutional Affiliation
The first international comparative study on the academic profession had
shown that academics in all economically advanced countries surveyed feel astronger affiliation to their discipline than to their department or their university.
German academics, however, stood out in stating the weakest affiliation to theirdepartment or their university. Thereby, academic staff have stated a clearly
lesser affiliation than professors to their university. The low affiliation to theuniversity in Germany certainly reflects the fact that institutional mobility during
the course of career is more highly regarded and rewarded in Germany thananywhere else.
From the early 1990s until recently various reforms of higher education
were realized in Germany aimed at strengthening the role of the individual
university, as far as decision-making power in general, resource allocation, anddifferential institutional prestige are concerned as well as in rewards and148
sanctions. One could have expected, therefore, that academics’ affiliation
towards their department and their university would have grown over time.
Table 8, however, shows that the university professors’ affiliation towards
their department and their university has not changed on average at all between
1992 and 2007. The academic staff at German universities response on average
is more similar to the professors in 2007 than in 1992. They do not rate their
institutional affiliation as exceptionally low as their predecessors did in the early
1990s. Actually, the ratings of academic staff without a doctoral degree do notdiffer significantly from those with a doctoral degree.
Table 8. Important Affiliation of Academics at German Universities 1992 and2007 (mean of a scale from 1 = “very important” to 5 = “not at allimportant”)

Academic discipline/field
Department
Institution

Academic staff
1992
2007
1.6
1.5
2.5
2.6
3.0
2.8

Professors
1992
2007
1.3
1.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6

Table 9 indicates that academics at public research institutes in Germany
consider themselves more strongly affiliated to their institution than theircolleagues at universities. The institutional affiliation expressed by academics
at public research institutes turns out to be similar to that of academics atuniversities in the U.S. and in Japan according to the survey of the early 1990s.
This certainly reflects the disciplinary and thematic specialisation as well as thefavourable working conditions at the public research institutes in Germany.
Table 9. Important Affiliation of Academics at German Universities andPublic Research Institutes 2007

Academic discipline/field
Department
Institution

Universities
Academic
Professors
staff
1.5
1.6
2.6
2.6
2.8
2.6

Research institutes
Academic
Seniors
staff
1.7
1.6
2.5
2.5
2.2
1.9

4.3 Overall Satisfaction
In the first international comparative survey on the academic profession,
university professors expressed a higher degree of satisfaction with their overall
professional situation than the academic staff in more or less all countries

149
included in the survey. But in various countries, this difference was by nomeans striking. On a scale from 1 = “very satisfied” to 5 = “very dissatisfied”,
university professors in Sweden responded 2.3 on average as compared toacademic staff (2.6). The respective average responses were 2.3 and 2.7 in the
U.S. and 2.5 and 2.8 in the United Kingdom. Germany stood out in terms of thewidest gap between the satisfaction of university professors and academic staff.
While professors in Germany had an average of 2.4, i.e. similar to professors inother economically advanced countries, academic staff in Germany, with anaverage response of 3.1, were clearly less satisfied with their professionalsituation than their colleagues in other economically advanced countries.
According to the 2007 survey, university professors in Germany are
somewhat more satisfied than their colleagues were in 1992, with an average of
2.2 as compared to 2.4. Most noteworthy, however, academic staff at German
universities are much more satisfied on average in 2007 than 15 years ago, withan average of 2.5 as compared to 3.1. Thus, the mean difference of ratings
between university professors and academic staff at German universities has
become substantially smaller. Further analysis will be needed to explain thischange over time, as employment and work conditions in general are not viewed
as having improved.
Again, we note that academics at public research institutes express a
substantially more positive view. The average score of overall satisfaction is
1.7 for directors and other seniors and 2.0 for academic staff.
The ratings by academic staff vary according to status and seniority.
・ They are most positive among academic staff without doctoral education
during the first six years after graduation (2.4 on average),・ while those continuing in employment at universities for a longer period
without a doctoral degree are less satisfied (2.8).
・ Those with a doctoral degree, who graduated at most 12 years earlier, rate
on average 2.7,
・ while those with a doctoral degree employed for a longer time beyond
graduation are, on average, more satisfied (2.5).
・ Among academic staff at public research institutes, those employed alonger time after graduation are more satisfied on average than those in
their junior years. This holds true most visibly for those without a doctoral
degree (1.9 as compared to 2.5), but also for those with a doctoral degree(2.0 as compared to 2.0).

150Thus, in the majority of cases, but not consistently, overall satisfaction
increases also, when academic staff are employed in academic staff positions
beyond the junior formative years.

5.

Concluding Observations

In the first international comparative survey on the academic profession,undertaken in 1992, the academic staff at German universities stood as being
least satisfied on average among academic staff in economically advanced
countries. Also the gap between the average satisfaction of academic staff andprofessors was wider at German universities than in other countries.
In a search for explanations, major changes could be observed neither in thegeneral employment conditions (e.g., salary, part-time employment, temporary
employment, etc.) nor in the resources for work. We concluded in the firststudy that a status gap between the formally distinct occupational categories of
Hochschullehrer und wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiter and a lack of recognition as
independent academics might have led to frustration on the part of many junioracademics.
The second international comparative survey on the academic profession,undertaken in 2007, suggests that there were at most small changes in theemployment and work situation of academic staff in Germany during the periodof 15 years. Though both university professors and academic staff, when asked
to assess change over time, believe that conditions have worsened, the averageratings of those surveyed in 1992 and 2007, are surprisingly similar. The
similarities are also surprising, if we take into account the multitude of reforms
aimed at changing the conditions for academic work in general and for junioracademic staff specifically.
Only one observed single change deserves attention. While academic staff
at German universities – in contrast to the situation in other economicallyadvanced countries – have spent only half the proportion of their working timeon teaching, as professors did in 1992, over time academic staff have become
more involved in teaching, while professors reduced the proportion of theirworking time devoted to teaching and teaching-related activities. As aconsequence, the gap in the proportion of time devoted to teaching has been cut
by more than half.
Given these results, it is quite surprising to note that academic staff atGerman universities are substantially more often satisfied with their overall
professional situation in 2007 than their predecessors were in 1992. Also, that151
the university professors in Germany surveyed in 2007 express a somewhat
higher degree of satisfaction than their predecessors did, but the differences ofratings between the academic staff and the professors have become substantiallysmaller over time.
Further analysis will be needed to find plausible
explanations for these changes.
The analysis of the 2007 data differs from the analysis of the preceding
survey in looking additionally at differences among academic staff in terms ofcareer stage. In various respects, junior staff at universities not (yet) awarded adoctoral degree rate their employment and work situation more favourably thanthose with doctoral degrees who can be regarded as still in a typical junior age
and time-span since graduation. Obviously, expectations grew over time. The
analysis provides evidence as well that a substantial proportion of academic staff
with a doctoral degree ‘survive’ the typical junior staff period in academic
positions at universities, and about half of them transfer to a permanent contract– contrary to the widespread notion that the normal alternative is to be appointed
to a professor position or to leave academia. These persons rate theiremployment and work conditions often more positively than those in their junioryears.
In addition, the 2007 survey not only addressed academics at universities
and other higher education institutions in Germany, but also those employed at
public research institutes. The findings suggest that work at these institutions isbased on better resources, provides better chances of long-term employment
without being promoted to senior ranks and creates a more powerful source ofpride and identification.
Not all the findings can be interpreted easily, but they certainly suggest thatin Germany empirical findings are often not in tune with the assumed impacts ofreforms or public rumours about the state, perceptions and values of theacademic profession.

References
Bracht, O., & Teichler, U. (2006). The Academic Profession in Germany. In Research Institutefor Higher Education (ed.), Reports of Changing Academic Profession Project Workshop
on Quality, Relevance and Governance in the Changing Academia: International
Perspectives (pp.129-150). Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.
Enders, J. (ed.) (2001). Academic Staff in Europe: Changing Contexts and Conditions.
London: Greenwood.

152
Enders, J., & De Weert, E. (eds.) (2004). The International Attractiveness of the Academic
Workplace in Europe. Frankfurt/Main: Gewerkschaft Erziehung und Wissenschaft.
Enders, J., & Teichler, U. (1997). A Victim of Their Own Success? Employment and Working
Conditions of Academic Staff in Comparative Perspective. Higher Education, 34(4),347-373.
Janson, K, Schomburg, H., & Teichler, U. (2007). Wege zur Professur: Qualifizierung undBeschäftigung an Hochschulen in Deutschland und den USA. Münster: Waxmann.
Sadlak, J. (ed.) (2004). Doctoral Studies and Qualifications in Europe and the United States:
Status and Prospects. Bucharest: CEPES/UNESCO.
Schomburg, H., & Teichler, U. (2006). Higher Education and Graduate Employment inEurope. Dordrecht: Springer.
Teichler, U. (1996). The Conditions of the Academic Profession: An International
Comparative Analysis of the Academic Profession in Western Europe, Japan and theUnited States. In P.A.M. Maassen, & F.A. Van Vught (eds.), Inside Academia: New
Challenges for the Academic Profession (pp.15-65). Utrecht: De Tijdstroom.

153

The Changing Academic Profession in Italy:
accounts from the past, first insights from the present

Michele Rostan∗

Italy was not included in the Carnegie Study on the Academic Profession(Altbach, 1996; Boyer, Altbach & Whitelaw, 1994). Yet, in the decades before
the Changing Academic Profession Project was initiated two major surveys on
the Italian academic profession were carried out. We shall first review the main
results of these researches looking for findings regarding the themes of the CAP
project, namely relevance, internationalisation, and management (Kogan &Teichler, 2007; Locke & Teichler, 2007), and we shall then present some first
insights on these themes from the data which have been collected through the
Italian survey of the CAP Project.

1. The Italian academic profession in the early 1970s: barons andbureaucrats
The first survey on the Italian academic profession (Giglioli, 1979), wascarried out in 1972 as part of a project including also a review of official
statistics and 30 in-depth interviews with academics selected in order to be
representative by disciplinary field. The questionnaire was sent by mail – threetimes – to a random sample of 2,800 academics, half full professors (professori
di ruolo) and half assistant professors (assistenti di ruolo). Valid, filled inquestionnaires, 1,363, were collected with a response rate of 48.7%.
Data collection took place just after a major change occurred in the Italianhigher education system, namely the establishment of an ‘open door’ policy as ananswer to the growth of social demand for higher education (law number 910,∗

Director, Centre for Study and Research on Higher Education Systems, University of Pavia,
Italy, e-mail: michele.rostan@unipv.it

154
December 1969), and at the beginning of a period of intense recruitment of newacademic staff trying to counterbalance the ongoing growth of the student body.
The student body grew from 259,000 regular students in the academic year
1964-65, to 488,000 students in 1969-70, and to 676,000 students in 1972-73.1
As a consequence of the unrestricted access to the university decided in 1969, theenrolment ratio (% of students enrolling for the first time with respect to the totalof people aged 19) increased from 14.8% in 1967-68, to 21.4% in 1969-70, to
28% in 1971-72. The academic body grew from 18,200 academics in 1969-70,
to 25,500 in 1972-73, and to 30,300 in 1975-76 (Giglioli, 1979, pp.34-35).
As a consequence of its timing, the survey portrays the Italian academic
profession at the very moment of crisis in its traditional model of organisation
caused by the growth of higher education. Thus, it can be considered as anextremely valuable term of reference in assessing the changes in the Italianacademy in the following 35 years.
According to the author, the traditional organisation of the Italian academic
profession was based on some long lasting characteristics of the national higher
education system. Since the Casati law in 1859 – which reorganised the system
under State monopoly in the frame of the process of national unification – theItalian system of higher education has had at least three major features: it was –and continued to be for a century and more – a highly centralised system lacking
internal differentiation and competition among its constituent parts.
Finance, personnel, and curricula were strictly disciplined centrally. The
system consisted of a single type of higher education institution – the university– providing a single type of degree, the laurea. There was no functional
specialisation among institutions, there were no university centres dedicated only
to research, and there was no institution – such as graduate schools – dedicated tothe training of future university researchers and teachers. Higher education was
mainly devoted to preparing bureaucrats for the State and professionals, in thesense of the traditional liberal professions. Because of the complete lack ofautonomy, competition between universities – and other organisational units,
such as Faculties – was hardly possible.
Despite the high degree of formal centralisation, central authorities lacked
the organisational tools to enforce rules and regulations, to collect valuable
information from institutions, or to control effectively personnel acting on the1

To the number of regular students must be added the number of overrun students (studenti
fuori corso). They were 145,000 in 1972-73, and this number increased in the following
years.

155
periphery, that is mainly the academics themselves. Thus, the system waspoorly coordinated and lacked internal cohesion. As a consequence of thestructural features of the Italian higher education system, the formal organisationof the academic profession was characterised by several elements, some of which
are largely still in place nowadays.
Academics’ legal status, salary, and career were all regulated nationally bylaw. University teachers were civil servants. They were hired through public
competitions (concorsi) centrally managed, and were paid the same salary by the
Ministry of the Treasury irrespective of the university they were serving in.
Besides these formal aspects, the organisation of the academic profession
rested on two crucial elements providing the higher education system with aminimum level of cohesion and coordination: “the chair”, and “the school”.
The chair referred to a group consisting of a full professor – the chair holder– his assistants, and other people working under his supervision. The group
was based on the personal authority of the full professor – or ‘maestro’ – whocontrolled the process of recruitment and the career of his subordinates,
especially their access to a chair, the apex of the academic profession. The
relationship between a full professor and his subordinates – that is, aspirant chairholders – was based on a mechanism of mutual support. As in the system aformal institution for the training of future academics was lacking, the maestro
provided training, through a long period of apprenticeship, and other crucial
resources: temporary assignments, salaries and, finally, tenure. On their side,
subordinates provided the maestro with personal and professional services
allowing him to get involved in several activities outside academia, which
increased his personal wealth, power, and prestige, and enhanced his influence
within the university.
Schools were networks of chairs – established on ideological bases, family
ties, or regional backgrounds, often operating at the national level – controlling
relevant resources such as journals, publishers, political links with parties or
single politicians, and especially controlling access to national commissions
responsible for the operations of public competitions, and to government bodies
in charge of higher education and research policies and funding.
Chairs and schools gave the Italian academic profession and the higher
education system at large, their peculiar traits. A few core universities – which
hosted the most powerful schools – dominated the entire system colonising
peripheral institutions, monopolising recruitment and careers, structuring thegeographical mobility of academics. At the local level, Faculties were weakly
integrated ‘federations’ of chairs, the latter often coinciding with small units of

156
research (istituti). At the national level, disciplines were fragmented into
schools, and academics considered their affiliation to them stronger than theiraffiliation to disciplines and to disciplinary associations. This organisational
structure hindered scientific research and prevented competition within thesystem at all levels.
As the traditional model of organisation of the Italian academy was largely
based on personal control over subordinates and weak boundaries between
institutional roles and personal interests, the author of this first research on the
Italian academic profession defined it “as a system of patrimonial relationships
veiled by a fine gloss of bureaucratic regulations” (Giglioli, 1979, p.64). 2
Using a neo-Weberian terminology, Giglioli argued that in the traditional modelof academic organisation, the patrimonial trait largely prevailed over thebureaucratic one.3
The traditional model of the Italian academic profession was put under
severe pressure by the expansion of the academic body following the transition
to mass higher education. While this expansion left unchanged two of thestructural conditions supporting the traditional model, namely the high degree ofcentralisation, and the lack of competition, it affected two other crucial
conditions: the small size of the academic community and the concentration of
power in the hands of a few chair holders. Expansion took place mainly at thelower levels of the academic profession (assistenti di ruolo, and professori
incaricati) unbalancing the numeric relation between chair holders and aspirant
chair holders, hindering upward mobility in the academic profession thereby
de-legitimising the authority of full professors and establishing a larger numberof lower and intermediate permanent positions in the profession. Further, theslower but substantial increase of chairs weakened the control mechanisms basedon schools.
Diminishing career opportunities, growing numbers of low and mid-level
academics, increasing teaching loads following the student expansion and the23Translations from the original Italian versions are done by the author of this article.
A very similar account of the Italian academy between the late 1960s and the early ‘70s canbe found in Burton Clark’s Academic Power in Italy. Bureaucracy and Oligarchy in a
National University System (1977). Clark’s fieldwork in Italy began in 1967, was mainly
carried out in the academic year 1968-69, and complemented with short visits in the period
1972-74. The fieldwork included collecting documents, carrying out interviews, andobserving Italian academic life, but not a survey. Both Clark and Giglioli mutuallyacknowledged sharing “interpretations and data” (Clark, 1977, p. ix), and discussing mattersrelated to the evolution of the organisation of the Italian academy in that period (Giglioli,
1979, p.7).

157
enlargement of the academic community, triggered new and unprecedented
tensions between the top and the bottom of the academic profession, weakened
the integrative and coordination functions of the two pillars of the traditionalmodel, namely chairs and schools, and fostered the transformation of theacademic career toward the bureaucratic model of other branches of the public
sector.
According to Giglioli, as chairs and schools were losing their functions, andas within the academic community there were no other organisational units –such as strong disciplinary associations – able to replace them, external big
organisations would come into play, namely political parties and trade unions.
As a result, the traditional academic profession – the guild of peers bounded
together by common ideals and material interests – would loose autonomy bybeing transformed into a bureaucratised profession controlled by external forces.
Nevertheless, as networks of personal ties and the personal power of single chairholders would not vanish, Giglioli thought that the Italian academic profession
was abandoning the patrimonial model of organisation in favour of abureaucratic-patrimonial one. Academics – top academics – would carry a
Janus mask, being at the same time ‘baroni’ and ‘burocrati’.
Evidence from the survey showed that with a shift from one organisationalmodel to another, the practical organisation of day-to-day academic activities,
and academics’ attitudes and opinions towards university problems differed verymuch within the Italian academic profession. Three deep cleavages weredividing the academic body, making it difficult to continue to speak of one single
academic profession: academic rank, university sectors’ or Faculties’ degree of
involvement in external professional activities (largely coinciding with thedistinction between pure and applied disciplines), and academics’ politicalorientation.
These cleavages largely explained differences in the organisation ofacademic work and structures, the division of labour between teaching andresearch, scientific productivity and attitudes towards issues widely discussed atthat time, such as possible restrictions upon the access to higher education, thecivil effects of the university degree, the introduction of more democratic
procedures, the autonomy of the academic profession and the modernisation of
the higher education system. One of the most important conclusions of theresearch was that the characteristics of the traditional model of organisation of
the academic profession tended to survive in times of transition to mass higher
education in the more professional sectors of the university.

158

2. Not so relevant links, low internationalisation, and weak
management
Although this first survey of Italian academic profession did not address
directly the three main topics of the CAP survey – in short, relevance,internationalisation, management – it is interesting to highlight some findings onthese matters.
As far as relevance is concerned, two aspects can be mentioned. The first
aspect refers to accountability and control over academic work as part of the
problem of proving academics’ work relevance to various internal or external
stakeholders (Brennan, 2007). Here, it can be noted that within the traditionalsetting the single chair holder was completely independent in his own domain“as a lord in his fief” (Giglioli, 1979, p.26), and he was not asked to respond to
the use and distribution of his work time nor of the functioning of the research
unit he was leading. Although academic life was strictly disciplined by laws
and regulations, state authorities completely lacked the ability to control
academic work. Peer review, and other forms of informal control within theacademic community, were hindered by the existence of the schools, that isclosed groups seldom communicating one with another. Only 13% of
respondents discussed their current research work more than two or three times ayear with colleagues in other Italian universities. Comments on papers before
publication were rarely asked. Of low and mid-level academics, 57% thoughtthat the lack of contacts with other research units and single researchers were
hindering their research work; 25% of full professors thought the same (Giglioli,
1979, p.118).
As mentioned, the Italian higher education system reacted to the expansionof the student body by enlarging the academic body. This change did not makethe academic profession more responsive to students’ needs. Universities
reacted to the growing demand for higher education by increasing selectivity(longer effective duration of studies, higher proportion of dropouts), andassigning heavier teaching duties to the growing segment of low- and mid-level
academics.
According to Giglioli, the expansion of the academic body opened the door
to the intrusion of external forces, namely trade unions and political parties,
supporting the corporatist claims of low- and mid-level academics,
bureaucratising the academic profession, deepening the fragmentation of theacademic community along political divides, strengthening external influenceson the academic profession and weakening its autonomy.

159
A stronger link between the academic profession and politics did not help
universities to better respond to the challenges of mass higher education. For
different reasons major political parties, trade unions and the ministerial
bureaucracy, were all against decentralisation and differentiation of the higher
education system (and hence were in fact opposing the introduction of internal
competition). Further, a stronger politicisation of the academy resulted not onlyin the formation of large politically-based groups with strong (and opposing)feelings about academic life, but also in the personal choices of some academics
who shifted the core of their interest from the academy to the political system,
abandoning the ideal of research and scholarship, and embracing that of politicaladvocacy.
As far as the second aspect is concerned, namely relevance of academic
knowledge for the economy, the most important thing to be noted refers to therole played by academics who were also members of the liberal or regulated
professions. The proportion of these academics was very high (more than 70%)
in sectors such as architecture, medicine, veterinary science, pharmacy andengineering, and quite high (between 30% and 70%) in other sectors, such as
business administration, law, agrarian studies and political science. These
academics were those most connected with the world of work, the professions
and production. Yet, according to Giglioli, their influence on the higher
education system was not especially positive. In fact, these academics weremainly interested in profiting from their academic qualifications in the market
for professional services, while they were neither pressing to orient university
policies towards vocational training, nor supporting the modernisation of higher
education. On the contrary, they were “a source of resistance against
innovations and reforms” (Giglioli, 1979, p.98). Academic ‘professionals’
were not the only academics transferring academic knowledge to the economy.
Others were also doing so, but mainly on an individual basis throughconsultancies without involving their institutions or promoting strong
university/industry relations. So, large sectors of the Italian university wereconnected to the economy but these links were neither fostering a change in the
structural features of the system, nor were they a resource in facing the newproblems following the transition to mass higher education.
At the time of the survey, the level of internationalisation of Italianacademics was quite low: only 7% of them were discussing their current
research work more than two or three times a year with colleagues of foreign
universities (Giglioli, 1979, p.118); only 12% of them had been abroad forreasons linked to research work in the previous five years, and no more than

160
23% had done so more than five years before (Giglioli, 1979, pp.137-138). The
rather marginal position of Italy in the international scientific community and theeffects of the traditional model of organisation of the academic profession wereconsidered to explain this condition. The long apprenticeship under the directsupervision of a chair holder, and the need to safeguard a position in the waiting
list for a post, discouraged young scholars from going abroad. The wide range
of institutional duties and especially the extra academic duties attached to therole of chair holder, hindered incumbents from investing in international
relations.
Yet, internationalisation differed across disciplines and was not without
effects. Cosmopolitan contacts were higher in the natural sciences and in
humanities, two non-professional sectors, and lower in medicine andengineering/architecture, two professional sectors (Giglioli, 1979, p.133).
Although academics with recent research experiences abroad had modest
influence on the academic profession, they appeared to be more in favour ofinnovations and reforms than colleagues without such experience, or who had
been abroad less recently (Giglioli, 1979, p.137). Disciplines well integrated in
the international scientific community – such as economics or physics – wereless internally fragmented than others (Giglioli, 1979, pp.61-62). Finally, for a
few academics, participation in the international dimension of the academic
profession represented a way to ‘escape’ individually from the difficulties ofdoing research in their university (Giglioli, 1979, p. 201).4
In a system as centralised as the Italian one, local universities’ management
was weak, often amateurish, ritualistic – that is, caring about the form and not
the contents of decisions – and unable to face and solve even every-day life
problems, especially in times of expanding student bodies. Important decisions
were taken by top academics, who also performed administrative tasks. Data
show that the extent of academics’ managerial activities was linked both to theacademic life cycle and to sector differences. As respondents obtained a chair,in their forties, the time dedicated to research activities dropped, and
4

The questionnaire of the first survey contained several questions on the international
dimension of the academic profession: number of articles published in a foreign language;
books translated or published in a foreign language; requests for critical comments fromforeign colleagues on a scientific work before publication; requests from foreign colleaguesof critical comments on their work; frequency of scientific discussions with colleagues offoreign universities; foreign sources of research funding; study or research activities inforeign universities; length of periods abroad; teaching activity in a foreign university; nameof the foreign institution and length of the teaching period abroad. Unfortunately, most of
the answers were not included in the related book.

161
administrative duties grew (Giglioli, 1979, pp.128-129). Further, a number offull professors were directly managing their unit of research. This was
especially the case in the more professional sectors, such as medicine andengineering, where 58% of full professors were leading so-called “istitutimono-cattedra”, that is research units with one single chair (Giglioli, 1979,p.91).

3. Stability and resistance to change in the late 1980s
The second survey on the Italian academic profession (Moscati, ed., 1997)
was carried out in two waves in the academic years 1987-88, and 1988-89. The
questionnaire was mailed to a sample of 25,230 academics working in 24
universities (out of the existing 62). The sample was stratified by rank,
geographical area of location of the university, and size of institution. The
sample was checked against the population data by disciplinary fields, andproved to be representative according to this variable. Valid returned
questionnaires were 5,754, with a response rate of 23%. The effective sample
was weighted by the four mentioned variables. In the following years a numberof in-depth interviews were also carried out.
Between the two surveys, the student body (regular and overrun students)
grew from 803,000 students in 1972-73 to 1,153,000 in 1987-88 (+ 30%), while
the academic body grew from 25,500 in 1972-73 to 48,900 in 1985-86 (+ 92%)
(Denti, 1997a). Three main events affected the academic profession in thisperiod (Moscati, 2001). First, in the 1970s, access to the profession was eased,
especially through the provision of temporary positions (professori incaricati,
assegnisti and contrattisti). Second, a major university reform was approved in1980 (law number 382). The law introduced to the Italian university
departments, doctoral programmes and degrees, some short study programmes,
and reorganised academic careers. The old non-official positions (assistenti
volontari) were abolished; temporary positions were turned into permanent
positions; three stable positions – that is with tenure – were established; limits on
the total number of staff in each of the three positions were fixed; national public
competitions to access the three positions were maintained. While at the timeof the first survey the academic profession mainly consisted of chair holders (fullprofessors with tenure), and aspirant chair holders (several temporary positions),by the time of the second survey it consisted of three stable categories, namely
full professors (professori ordinari), associate professors (professori associati),

162
and researchers (ricercatori).5 Third, in 1987 a Ministry of University and
Scientific and Technological Research was established as distinct from the
Ministry of Education. The new Minister, Ruberti, promoted a set of measures
aimed at introducing short cycles in the higher education system, recruiting
teachers from outside the academic career, and decentralising the system by
granting increased autonomy to universities. The survey took place while thesevery relevant proposals were discussed in Parliament and in the political system,
but seldom within the academic profession.
According to the research project leader, two decades later, the impact of
the shock produced by the ‘open door’ measures decided in 1969 proved to be
temporary. Some of the effects of the crisis witnessed by the first survey on theacademic profession turned out to be weaker than were expected. The political
impact of students within the university was not the one anticipated in the early
1970s. Academics did not join trade unions as much as was expected.
Orientation to the external world varied a lot across disciplinary sectors.
Traditional academic power took advantage of this situation. While providing
more stable conditions at the lower levels of the academic ladder, the law
number 382 did not change career procedures, leaving largely untouched thepower of chair holders and “school” leaders. The reforms proposed by Minister
Ruberti, although they were approved by Parliament, had very weak support
from academics, and were largely not implemented. The low quality of the
Italian university, reported by the first survey on the academic profession, did not
improve, and in the 1970s and 1980s the university was managed along
traditional lines. At the end of the 1980s, bureaucratisation induced by theoutside was no higher than at the time of the first survey in the early 1970s.
All in all, in the two decades preceding the second survey, the Italianacademic world was characterised by a strong resistance to change. Moreover –and more importantly – the results from the research were showing that the
Italian academic profession was not yet involved in the processes of change thatwere ongoing in other Western countries.
Differences across disciplinary sectors on both the relationship between theacademy and the external world, and academics’ attitude towards innovation
were highlighted by the research. Applied disciplines – namely, medicine, law,engineering, and architecture – appeared to be more open to society and the5

Moscati noted that with law number 382: “The en masse admission of untenured staff filled
up the three sections of academia that had predefined ceilings. As a consequence,
recruitment from the outside became almost impossible, which put at risk an entire generationof young scholars” (Moscati, 2001, p. 121).

163
economy. Combining resources from internal and external sources (various
forms of ‘capital’ in Bourdieu’s terms), these sectors – showing also highproportions of academics involved in professional activities – were confirming
their predominance over the entire higher education system already pointed out
by Giglioli in the first survey. Yet, a stronger link with the world outside theacademy did not necessarily mean a stronger attitude towards innovation andchange. In this regard, the case of medicine was considered as paradigmatic
representing a sector open to the external world and closed to innovation. Thisdisciplinary sector was at the same time closer to the hard sciences, socially very
relevant, and characterised more than other sectors by the permanence of a
traditional model of organisation of the academic profession: the personal
influence of chair holders on both recruitment and careers of subordinates, careeradvancements based not only on merit but also on seniority and a weak
distinction between institutional roles and the private interests of incumbents.
This combination was regarded as having negative effects on the overall system.
In fact, medicine was strong enough to exercise a role of leadership within theacademic world but was also too traditional to take the lead in the process ofchange in higher education, hindering the modernisation of the Italian system.
According to the results of the first survey on the Italian academic
profession, differences in attitudes towards innovation were explained both byacademic rank and the degree of academics’ involvement in professional
activities. In fact, “the most ‘conservative’ group consists of chair holders
belonging to professional faculties, and the group more open to innovations
consists of assistenti and incaricati (assistant professors) from sciences and fromhumanities” (Giglioli, 1979, p.109). As already noted, ‘professional’ faculties
included medicine, engineering, architecture, and law. According to the results ofthe second survey, “the index of conservatism … reaches its maximum withmedicine, and minimum values for the scientific group and for humanities. …
Data indicate a strong conservative pole among full professors, especially within
medicine, and on the contrary, an innovative pole among researchers inhumanities” (Moscati, 1997, p.90). Twenty years later the picture drawn by the
first survey was confirmed by the second, with a novelty which was going toplay an important role in the following years. The degree of conservatism ofengineering – one of the applied sectors dominating the system – was lower thanthat of medicine, and was approaching the level of the more innovative groupcomposed by natural sciences, physics, and mathematics.

164

4. Inadequate demands, and a still unsatisfactory level ofinternationalisation
The final report of the second research study addressed several topics:
quantitative aspects of the Italian system of higher education, disciplinary andsocial differences within the academic profession, the time dedicated to teaching,research and other academic activities, the determinants and impacts ofacademics’ external professional activities, and the relationship between
scientific and religious beliefs. For the first time, the issues of genderdifferences in the academic profession, and of the role of family in academics’
careers, were discussed at length. Not surprisingly, because of the stability of
the Italian higher education system, the relationship between academics anduniversity managers was not addressed as an issue in its own right. Yet, thesurvey on the academic profession was complemented not only by in-depth
interviews but also with an ad-hoc organisational study on a specific department
established following approval of the law 382/1980.
The stability of the system and the resistance to change were related to theissue of relevance. According to Moscati, stability and lack of change
depended – among other things – on the nature and the intensity of the societal
demands placed upon higher education. The Italian situation displayed somepeculiar traits. The little importance given to scientific research hindered thedevelopment of public or private research centres outside the university,
reinforcing academics’ monopoly on the production of knowledge and – at thesame time – deprived universities of new and challenging demands. The
economic system addressed the academy mainly through a fragmented demandfor professional consultancies at the individual level which matched both thecharacteristics of many disciplines and the legal status of academics that
permitted them to combine internal duties and external activities. On the otherside, state intervention in the structure of the Italian higher education system,
fostering more autonomy and diversification, was just at its very first steps; andthe system was not submitted to any form of evaluation as a result of a weak
demand for accountability and responsiveness and/or a strong ability to resist.
The international dimension of the profession was discussed, in opposition
to academics’ orientations towards localism and cosmopolitism (Denti, 1997b,
pp.166-171; Moscati, 1997, pp.85-87).
Four issues were taken into
consideration: a) works translated into or published in a foreign language; b)
receipt by academics of requests for comments or advice on research projects orworks before publication from foreign colleagues in the two years preceding the165
survey; c) submission by academics of their last work to foreign colleagues
asking for critical comments; d) academics having spent a period of study,
research, or teaching abroad. Of the interviewed academics, 27.6% had neverseen a work translated or published in a foreign language, while 36.4% had seensome, and 36% a lot. Participation in foreign languages publishing circuits
varied according to rank, and to discipline. Participation was higher among full
professors (19% never published in a foreign language), and lower among
researchers (37.3% never published in a foreign language). The mostinternationally integrated groups – as far as translations and publishing wereconcerned – were the scientific and medical groups (respectively, 9.4% and11.6% never published in a foreign language), followed by the engineering group(27.7% never published in a foreign language). On the opposite side, the least
internationally integrated was the humanities group (55.3% never published in aforeign language).
As far as international contacts were concerned, 16.7% of academics
received a request for comments or advice from foreign colleagues (especiallyfull professors, 25%), while 14.6% submitted a recent work to foreign colleagues
asking for critical comments (full professors doing so slightly more, 17.1%).
Again, the scientific group appeared to be the most internationally integrated
with 21.5% of academics receiving requests for advice, and 21.1% asking forcomments. The other groups were less involved, yet it is interesting to note that
19.2% of academics belonging to humanities had received a request for advice
from foreign colleagues and 16.3% of academics of the medical group had asked
foreign colleagues for comments.
Finally, 45.7% of the Italian academics had spent a period of study, research,or teaching abroad. Academics from social and political sciences (60.4%), andfrom natural sciences, physics, and mathematics (50.2%) were the moreinternationally mobile, while academics from engineering (34.4%), andarchitecture (28.5%) were the least mobile. These experiences were notwithout effects as among academics spending a period abroad, 26.8% werereceiving requests for advice from foreign colleagues (against 8.2% among those
who did not have this experience), and 24.4% were asking foreign colleagues forcomments (against 7.1% among those who did not spend any period abroad).
According to rapporteurs, the international dimension involved a very
limited number of Italian academics, and international exchanges were very
modest. Differences across disciplinary sectors were explained by referring tovarious factors: a stronger tradition of international exchanges within the hardsciences; the appeal of foreign schools of thought for advanced studies in some

166
disciplines (England for economists, and Germany for jurists); the weak
establishment of some disciplines such as political science and sociology in the
Italian academy, and the need for scholars in these disciplines to study abroad,especially in the US. On the basis of the reports of the first two surveys on the
Italian academic profession a full assessment of the changes in the international
dimension is not possible.
Nevertheless, the impression is that theinternationalisation of the Italian academic profession was slowly developing.

5. The CAP Project in Italy
The field work for the CAP Project in Italy started on September 20, andended on December 31, 2007. In order to reach an acceptable return rate, theItalian version of the master questionnaire was personally delivered through a
network of junior collaborators to a random sample of 4,800 academics working
in 30 of the existing 75 universities. Participating universities included theeight larger Italian institutions of higher education (so-called mega atenei), and aselection of large (6), medium (8) and small (8) institutions (16 institutions arelocated in Northern Italy, 6 in Central Italy and 8 in Southern Italy & Islands).6
The sample was stratified by rank and by size of institution.7
During the survey, a preliminary message was sent to almost all theacademics included in the sample by e-mail introducing the research project andthe Italian research group. An introductory letter with the questionnaire wasalso sent to the Rectors of participating institutions. Further, two reminder
6

The list of the 75 Italian universities does not include the 12 newly established “università
telematiche” (universities providing only on-line study programmes), and the 2 universities
for foreign students. We also excluded from the survey universities with less than 200
academics. From the list of remaining universities – which accounts for 98% of the Italianacademics in 2006 – we selected 30 universities including the 8 larger institutions, andslightly over-representing medium size and small size institutions. Very large institutions
have more than 2,000 academics, large institutions from 1,200 to 1,999, medium size
institutions, from 700 to 1,199, and small institutions, from 200 to 699. The number of 30
universities to be included in the survey was chosen because it was the maximum possible
given budget constraints.
7
From the National Register of Italian academics (full professors, associate professors, andresearchers) of the year 2006, which is managed by CINECA (the Information Systems
Inter-University Consortium), we drew the complete list of the academics of the 30 selected
universities accounting for 69.7% of all Italian academics. Next we randomly selected asample of academics stratified by rank (3 strata) and institutions’ size (4 strata) using national
proportions. As a consequence, the sample consisted of 32% full professors, 31% associate
professors, and 37% researchers; further, it consisted of 36% academics working in very large
institutions, 24% in large institutions, 23% in medium institutions, and 17% in small
institutions.

167
actions were carried out, one by e-mail, and one by phone. In order to increase
the response rate, in half of the institutions it was possible to ask senior staff(Pro-Rectors, Deans, Heads of Departments, reputed scholars) personally tocontact prospective respondents. Almost all the completed questionnaires werepersonally obtained by junior collaborators, or collected by them through theinternal mail service of the participating institutions. As a result, 1,701
questionnaires were returned with a 35.5% response rate.
Between the second survey on the Italian profession and the CAP Project, thestudent body grew from 1,153,000 in 1987-88 to 1,781,000 in 2006-2007 (+54%), while the academic body grew from 48,900 in 1985-86 to 62,000 in
2006-2007 (+ 27%).
The last fifteen years have been a period of very relevant changes in the
Italian university (Moscati & Vaira, 2008). As far as the legal frame regulating
the Italian university is concerned, several measures can be mentioned. In the
1990s (Moscati, 2001), following the reform action of Minister Ruberti, lawnumber 341/1990 established short cycle study parallel to the traditional longone (lauree brevi and diplomi universitari) giving a first contribution to thediversification of curricula. In 1993, the Government changed the approach touniversity funding by deciding to give every year to each university a lump sum
according to certain parameters and letting universities decide how to use it:“This measure represented the first real step toward university autonomy”(Moscati, 2001, p.113). A second period of reforms, started with theappointment of Luigi Berlinguer as Minister of University and Research in 1996.
Major events of this period include: the start of what is now called the Bologna
Process (Sorbonne Declaration in 1998, and Bologna Declaration in 1999);
reform of public competitions giving access to the three grades of academic
positions, which shifted operation of the competitions from the national to the
local level (law number 210/1998); curricular reform with the introduction of the‘European’ structure of study called “3+2+3”, or “Bachelor/Master/Doctorate”(decree number 509/1999), and the introduction of the ECTS; the creation of a
National agency of evaluation of the university system, and of related agencies
within each single institution (law number 370/1999). Finally, in the 2000s
some changes for curricular reform were approved (decree number 270/2004),
and started to be implemented only very recently.

168

6. First evidences of a changing profession
According to the data, Italian academics participating in the CAP survey arequite satisfied with their jobs: 65.1% rate high or very high their overallsatisfaction with their current job, full professors (77.6%) more than researchers(55.3%). Yet, they have a rather pessimistic view on young people beginningan academic career: 73.9% do think that this is a poor time for any young person
to start an academic career and support the view that things have worsened since
they started their careers (55.7% say that overall working conditions in higher
education have deteriorated or very much deteriorated since they started theircareers). As the curricular reform of 1999 has been one of the major changes in
the Italian higher education system, we decided to add to the Italian version of
the questionnaire a section evaluating it. All in all, respondents are critical of
the reform with 74.4% of them giving a negative assessment to it. But more
importantly, data show that the reform has had a strong impact on academic
work: 61.6% of respondents say that it has increased teaching loads, and 75.7%
say that it has increased academics’ organisational and managerial duties.
Table 1. Evaluation of teaching by academic rank

(%)

Full
Professor

Associate
Professor

Researcher

TotalYour peers in your department or unit

16.0

19.3

24.9

20.4

The head of your department or unit

29.0

29.8

37.1

32.3

Members of other departments or units at this institution

3.3

3.8

4.4

3.9

Senior administrative staff at this institution

2.3

2.8

2.8

2.7

Your students

87.7

87.1

87.3

87.4

External reviewers

8.9

8.4

8.8

8.7

Yourself (formal self-assessment)

21.0

25.3

27.6

24.9

No one at or outside my institution

5.6

3.2

4.1

4.3

N=

514

533

638

1,685

E3 By whom is your teaching, research, and service regularly evaluated?

This is not the only change in the academic profession. Respondents’answers witness the changes following the introduction of evaluation
mechanisms in the system. Teaching (see Table 1) is evaluated mainly by
students with no differences according to rank. Further there are first evidencesof evaluation along hierarchical and horizontal lines within academic units, and169
also of self-evaluation. Very few people escape evaluation. Evaluation is notwithout consequences as 80.8% of respondents say that they are encouraged to
improve their instructional skills in response to teaching evaluations. Even
though the operations and outcomes of teaching evaluations can be criticised(Bonazzi & Vaira, 2003), the institutionalisation of academics’ accountability
towards students and other actors is increasing.
Though to a lesser extent, research is also evaluated (see Table 2). Here,external evaluators, on the one hand, and peers and heads of relevant units, on
the other hand, play a major role. Further, research is no more an isolated
activity as 75.7% of respondents collaborate in their research efforts withpersons at other institutions in Italy.
Table 2. Evaluation of research by academic rank

(%)

Full
Professor

Associate
Professor

Researcher

TotalYour peers in your department or unit

28.2

36.6

48.0

38.3

The head of your department or unit

22.4

29.8

37.6

30.5

Members of other departments or units at this institution

6.4

7.3

10.0

8.1

Senior administrative staff at this institution

2.1

2.8

3.3

2.8

Your students

1.2

1.9

3.0

2.1

External reviewers

52.9

43.9

38.2

44.5

Yourself (formal self-assessment)

22.2

24.0

25.7

24.1

No one at or outside my institution

13.8

14.6

9.9

12.6

N=

514

533

638

1,685

E3 By whom is your teaching, research, and service regularly evaluated?

As far as the relevance of academic knowledge for the economy isconcerned, we note that only 1.9% of respondents to the CAP questionnaire also
work at a business organization outside the academe, and only 6.6% ofrespondents are also self-employed. 8
Although the distribution ofself-employed academics by disciplinary sector follows the traditional pattern –their proportion is higher than average in law (15.5%), social sciences, medicine,engineering/architecture, and business administration (7.8%) sectors – we know
8

Of respondents, 4.1% also work at a non-profit organization or government entity outsideacademe, and 8.4% also work at another research institute or higher education institution; allin all, 17.9% of respondents are doing some kind of additional remunerated work.

2.1

20.4

6.8

1.7

Commercially-oriented/intended
for technology transfer research (D2)Institution emphasizes
commercially-oriented or appliedresearch (D6)

Institution encourages academics toadopt service activities/entrepreneurial
activities outside the institution (E6)

Academics involved in the process oftechnology transfer (D3)
6.0

8.3

27.9

4.6

58.8

4.3

8.9

27.9

6.8

64.6

2.4

7.9

35.6

1.9

46.3

16.9

17.7

42.5

13.7

44.4

14.4

15.5

35.7

15.6

46.6

33.3

28.1

51.7

34.5

79.3

17.7

11.6

41.1

31.5

83.9

16.0

17.6

37.5

14.6

82.4

10.8

5.3

31.6

11.7

39.1

14.6

15.0

36.8

16.4

59.4

Total

(%)

The figures show the percentages of respondents showing level (1) or level (2).

The

respondents answering “yes”.

D3 Have you been involved in any of the following research activities during this (or the previous) academic year? Answers yes or no. The figures show the percentage of

figures show the percentages of respondents showing level (1) or level (2).

E6 To what extent does your institution emphasize the following practices? Provision is made for answers to range over 5-levels from “(1) very much” to “(5) not at all”.

the percentages of respondents showing level (1) or level (2).

D6 Please indicate your views on the following. Provision is made for responses to range over 5-levels from “(1) strongly agree” to “(5) strongly disagree”. The figures show

much” to “(5) not at all”.

D2 How would you characterize the emphasis of your primary research this (or the previous) academic year? Provision is made for answers to range over 5-levels from “(1) very

30.1

MedicalEngineering,
PhysicalSocial,Businesssciences,
Manufacturing
sciences,
BehaviouralLifeandHumanities
Agriculture Health related Other
Law
andMathematics,
andsciences
Administration,
and Arts
sciences,
Construction,
Computer
Education
Economics
Social services
Architecturesciencessciences

Table 3. Several aspects of academic knowledge relevance for the economy by disciplinary sector

Applied/practically-oriented research
(D2)

170
170

171
that the number of self-employed academics is greater than that.9 Very likely,‘professional’ Italian academics were too busy to answer the questionnaire, andthey are under-represented in the final sample.
Taking these data into account, it is the more interesting to note several
aspects of academics’ research activities and of their institutions attitudes, related
to the relationship with the economy (see Table 3). Most academics areengaged in applied research, especially in the agriculture sector (agrarian &veterinary sciences), medical sciences, engineering/architecture, but also in
business administration and economics, and in social and behavioural sciences.
One-third of those working in engineering/architecture and in the agriculture
sector are also involved in commercially-oriented research or research intended
for technology transfer. According to a high percentage (40-50%) of academics
working in engineering/architecture, life science, and agriculture, their institutionemphasizes commercially-oriented or applied research. According to a lower
but still substantial percentage (15-30%) of academics working inengineering/architecture, life sciences, medical sciences and other hard sciences(physics, mathematics, computer science), their institution encourages academics
to adopt service activities, or entrepreneurial activities outside the institution.
First findings from the CAP survey show that also among academics notespecially involved in additional remunerated work, activities linking
universities and the economy are carried out possibly not only on an individual
basis but also involving institutions. Of course the importance of these activities
and attitudes varies a lot across disciplinary fields, with theengineering/architecture sector being at the forefront. These findings match withwhat we know about changes in the relations between university and industry in
Italy (Rostan & Vaira, 2007).
Among respondents, 98.8% earned their first higher education degrees (thelaurea) in the country of their current employment, that is, very likely Italy. Yet,over the whole sample, 23% has had its major postgraduate study experience –apart from doctoral studies – abroad, and 9.4% earned a PhD abroad. Further,data show that a process of internationalisation – still to be assessed more
precisely – is on its way both in teaching, and research activities (see Tables 4,9According to the second survey on the Italian academic profession, academics engaged alsoin professional activities (traditional liberal professions or regulated professions) were 19%,
and academics engaged in other forms of consultancy were 13%. These are the two groups
closer to the status of self-employed. All in all, academics engaged in additional
remunerated activities (either professional activities, consultancies, external research
activities, and external teaching and training activities) were 35% (Tota, 1997).

27.7

71.3

51.8

1.3

Teaching in a language different
from the language of instruction atyour current institution (C5)

In your courses you emphasizeinternational perspectives orcontent (C4)Since you started teaching, thenumber of international students
has increased (C4)

Currently, most of your graduate
students are international (C4)
0.0

44.0

65.7

28.7

16.0

6.8

63.2

62.2

46.1

18.3

1.5

31.4

63.0

19.7

14.1

2.4

33.9

55.8

16.5

7.7

4.3

39.9

55.0

27.2

11.6

1.2

19.6

62.6

21.9

11.5

1.2

42.7

60.6

21.5

13.3

the percentages of respondents showing level (1) or level (2).

1.3

44.4

64.6

28.9

21.7

2.3

41.0

60.9

24.7

13.6

The figures show

Answers yes or no. The figures show the percentage of respondents answering “yes”.

1.3

53.2

63.0

26.2

22.6

(%)

Medicalsciences,
Health related Other Total
sciences,
Social services

C4 Please indicate your views on the following. Provision is made for responses to range over 5-levels from “(1) strongly agree” to “(5) strongly disagree”.

C5 During the current (or previous) academic year, are you teaching any courses?

17.3

PhysicalSocial,Engineering,
Business andsciences,
Life
Manufacturing
Humanities Behavioural
Administration, Law
Agriculture
Mathematics,
sciencesand Construction,
and Arts and Education
Economics
Computersciences
Architecturesciences

Table 4. Internationalisation of teaching activities by disciplinary sector

Teaching abroad (C5)

172
172

(%)

57.8

27.5

22.0

Academics collaborating withinternational colleagues (D1)

No works published in a language
different from the language of
instruction at current institution(D5)

No works published in a foreigncountry (D5)
34.0

25.4

48.0

63.8

26.5

22.8

37.4

72.5

48.2

50.8

47.6

63.2

4.2

1.4

70.4

77.2

1.8

0.8

71.2

83.3

9.6

4.0

56.9

74.4

6.7

2.3

63.5

67.4

The figures show the percentages of respondents showing level (1) or level (2).

13.2

10.1

58.6

74.9

Answers yes

country.

The figures show the percentage of respondents indicating no publications in these categories.

D5 Which percentage of your publications in the last three years were published: in a language different from the language of instruction at your current institution; or in a foreign

or no. The figures show the percentage of respondents answering “yes”.

D1 How would you characterize your research efforts undertaken during this (or the previous) academic year? Do you collaborate with international colleagues?

answers to range over 5-levels from “(1) very much” to “(5) not at all”.

19.0

17.6

56.6

73.2

Provision is made for

10.3

2.5

51.4

72.6

D2 How would you characterize the emphasis of your primary research this (or the previous) academic year? International in scope or orientation.

78.2

International scope or orientationof research (D2)

MedicalPhysicalEngineering,Social,Business andsciences,sciences,
Manufacturing
Life
Humanities Behavioura
Agriculture Health related Other Total
Administration, Law
Mathematics,
and Construction,sciencesand Arts and Education
sciences,
Computer
Economics
Architecturesciences
Social services
sciences

Table 5. Internationalisation of research activities by disciplinary sector

173

173

174
and 5). According to 40% of respondents, the number of international students
has increased to 50-60% in business administration/economics, law, andhumanities, and 60% of academics emphasize international perspectives andcontents in their courses (70% in humanities). Yet, teaching in a language
different from the one currently used involves 25% of academics (but 46% inbusiness/economics), and only 13.6% teach abroad (or have taught abroad in theprevious year). Almost 60% of academics are collaborating with international
colleagues in research activities (70% in life science, physical sciences,mathematics and computer science), and the research activity of 75% of
respondents is international in scope or orientation (around 80% in physicalsciences, mathematics, computer science and humanities). Publishing in aforeign language, or in a foreign country, is widespread, especially in the hardsciences.10
Table 6. Evaluation of personnel and management(%)

Secretarial
supportTeaching
support staff

Researchsupport staff

Topadministrators

Positive

34.6

16.1

17.3

32.7

Neutral

29.5

25.6

21.7

34.5

Negative

35.9

58.2

61.0

32.8

Total

100

100

100

100

N=

1,684

1,583

1,577

1,612

B3 At this institution, how would your evaluate each of the following facilities, resources, or personnel you
need to support your work?

Provision is made for answers to range over 5-levels from “(1) excellent”

to “(5) poor”. The figures show the percentages of respondents showing level (1) or (2) as positive,
level (3) as neutral, or levels (4) and (5) as negative.
E5 Please indicate your views on the following issues: Top-level administrators are providing competentleadership. Provision is made for responses to range over 5-levels from “(1) strongly agree” to “(5)strongly disagree”.

The figures show the percentages of respondents showing level (1) or (2) as

positive, level (3) as neutral, or levels (4) and (5) as negative.

10

Figures in Table 5 refer to 1,472 respondents out of 1,701 for publishing in a different
language, and to 1,303 out of 1,701 for publishing abroad. Assuming that people notanswering these questions do not publish in a different language or in a foreign country, we
would have 22.2% of all respondents who do not publish in a different language, and 33.0%
of them who do not publish in a foreign country. According to the second survey on the
Italian academic profession, in the late 1980s 27.6% of academics never published a work in
a foreign language. It is to be noted that the second survey was referring to the entire
academics’ career while the CAP survey refers only to the last three years before theinterview.

175
Finally, CAP data show that according to respondents, management, therelations between academics and support staff, and in general the administrativeand organisational life within universities, are very critical issues nowadays in
the Italian higher education system. Academics’ evaluation of teaching, andresearch support staff – which refers to two crucial areas both exposed to strong
demands – is largely negative, while their view on secretarial support and top
administrators is more balanced, but hardly positive (see Table 6). Adding an
extra item to the Italian questionnaire, we also asked for a view on therelationship between internal organisation and bureaucracy on the one hand, andresearch activity on the other hand: 58.4% of respondents strongly agree with theview that “the organisation of university life, and bureaucratic procedures aremaking it more and more difficult to devote oneself to research activities”, and26.6% also agree with this view, albeit not strongly. A large or very large,
proportion of respondents thinks that professional development foradministrative/management duties for individual faculty is not provided by their
institution, there is no supportive attitude of administrative staff towards teaching,
and research activities, the administrative process is cumbersome, there is a
top-down management style, and there is no collegiality in the decision-making
process (see Table 7).

7. Conclusions
The reforms of the 1990s have had an impact on the Italian academic
profession and are beginning to change at least some of its features. The
curricular reform increased both teaching loads and academics’ organisationaland managerial duties. Evaluation practices started to make academics moreaccountable towards students, other academics and external actors. It seems
that substantial parts of the Italian academy are linked in new ways to theeconomy, are more integrated in the international scientific community and thatinternational student mobility is beginning to involve also the Italian higher
education system. Very likely these changes will trigger new tensions within
the Italian academy. CAP survey first findings point to strong tensions at theinstitutional level where management, support staff, bureaucratic procedures,organisational settings and governance mechanisms do not seem to help
academics in facing new demands and new tasks.

176
Table 7. Rating of the institution(%)

Agreement

NeutralDisagreement

Total

N=

20.6

34.4

45.0

100

1,548

26.8

35.9

37.4

100

1,637

A top-down management style

51.9

31.9

16.2

100

1,602

Collegiality in decision-making
processes

16.2

35.5

48.3

100

1,627

A strong performance orientation

22.6

37.6

39.8

100

1,597

A cumbersome administrative process

52.8

25.3

21.8

100

1,630

19.3

27.1

53.6

100

1,621

17.7

27.5

54.8

100

1,619

4.4

11.4

84.2

100

1,616

A strong emphasis on the institution’s
missionGood communication between
management and academics

A supportive attitude ofadministrative staff towards teachingactivities
A supportive attitude ofadministrative staff towards research
activities
Professional development foradministrative/management duties forindividual faculty

E4 At my institution there is … Provision is made for responses to range over 5-levels from “(1) strongly agree”
to “(5) strongly disagree”.

The figures show the percentages of respondents showing level (1) or (2) as

positive, level (3) as neutral, or levels (4) and (5) as negative.

Acknowledgments
The Italian CAP survey has been made possible by a grant from theCompagnia di San Paolo foundation of Turin that we thank very much for its
support. The research group consisted of Alessandro Cavalli, Roberto Moscati,
Michele Rostan and Massimiliano Vaira of CIRSIS (the Centre for Study andResearch on Higher Education Systems of the University of Pavia). Andrea
Membretti was responsible for the field work; Nicolò Pozzi and Maria Spitti
were responsible for the data entry; Michela Frontini prepared the data set. The
good performance of the CAP project in Italy would not have been possible
without the work and the support of junior and senior collaborators fromparticipating universities. We wish to thank them, and their institutions. Finally
we are very grateful to the hundreds of Italian academics who answered thequestionnaire; without their help our efforts would have been useless.

177

References
Altbach, P.G. (ed.) (1996). The International Academic Profession. Portraits of Fourteen
Countries. San Francisco: Carnegie Foundation-Jossey-Bass.
Bonazzi, G., & Vaira M. (2003). La valutazione della qualità della didattica: alcune
considerazioni critiche, Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia, 44(3), 447-453.
Boyer, E.L., Altbach, P.G., & Whitelaw, M.J. (1994). The Academic Profession: An
International Perspective. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancementof Teaching.
Brennan, J. (2007). The Academic Profession and Increasing Expectations of Relevance. In M.
Kogan, & U. Teichler (eds.), Key Challenges to the Academic Profession (pp.19-28).
Paris-Kassel: UNESCO Forum on Higher Education Research and Knowledge andInternational Centre for Higher Education Research (INCHER-Kassel).
Clark, B.R. (1977). Academic Power in Italy: Bureaucracy and Oligarchy in a National
University System. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Denti, F. (1997a). Il sistema universitario italiano: aspetti della crescita. In R. Moscati (ed.),Chi governa l’università? Il mondo accademico italiano tra conservazione e mutamento(pp.13-34). Napoli: Liguori.
Denti, F. (1997b). Tra didattica e ricerca scientifica: l’uso del tempo accademico. In R.
Moscati (ed.), Chi governa l’università? Il mondo accademico italiano tra conservazione
e mutamento (pp.141-171). Napoli: Liguori.
Giglioli, P.P. (1979). Baroni e burocrati. Il ceto accademico italiano. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Kogan, M., & Teichler U. (eds.) (2007). Key Challenges to the Academic Profession.
Paris-Kassel: UNESCO Forum on Higher Education Research and Knowledge andInternational Centre for Higher Education Research (INCHER-Kassel).
Locke, W., & Teichler U. (eds.) (2007). The Changing Conditions for Academic Work andCareers in Selected Countries. Werkstattberichte, 66. Kassel: International Centre forHigher Education Research (INCHER-Kassel), University of Kassel.
Moscati, R. (1997). Tribù accademiche, mondi accademici: differenze disciplinari
nell’università italiana. In R. Moscati (ed.), Chi governa l’università? Il mondo
accademico italiano tra conservazione e mutamento (pp. 65-92). Napoli: Liguori.
Moscati, R. (2001). Italian University Professors in Transition, Higher Education, 41(1-2),
103-129.
Moscati, R. (ed.) (1997). Chi governa l’università? Il mondo accademico italiano traconservazione e mutamento. Napoli: Liguori.
Moscati, R., & Vaira, M. (eds.) (2008). L’università di fronte al cambiamento. Realizzazioni,
problemi e prospettive. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Rostan, M., & Vaira, M. (2007). Changing Patters of University/Industry Relations in Italy.

178
In J. Enders, & B. Jongbloed (eds.), Public-Private Dynamics in Higher Education.
Expectations, Developments, and Outcomes (pp.361-386). Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.
Tota, L. (1997). Dentro e fuori l’università. Stili accademici e identità professionali. In R.
Moscati (ed.), Chi governa l’università? Il mondo accademico italiano tra conservazione
e mutamento (pp.173-196). Napoli: Liguori.

Asia-Pacific Region

179

The Australian Academic Profession: a first
overview

Hamish Coates*, Leo Goedegebuure**, Jeannet Van Der Lee*** andLynn Meek****Introduction
This paper provides a first preliminary analysis of the Australian CAP
survey results. The Australian survey closed in early December 2007. Given
the time necessary to clean and organise the database, there obviously has been
little time to engage in in-depth statistical interrogation of the data.
Nonetheless, even a cursory glance at the responses indicates a very rich andinteresting data set that will lend itself to on-going analysis over the next months
if not years.
To contextualise the outcomes of the survey, this paper begins with a few
words on the background to Australian higher education, reminding the reader ofsome of the profound changes experienced by the sector over the last couple ofdecades. The next section summarises the methodological approach tosampling adopted by the Australian team. A rigorous sampling methodology
has been used which allows for a high degree of confidence in thegeneralisability of responses (the overall response rate was approximately 25%,slightly below the target rate of 30% but delivering an appropriate effective
sample size). An overview of the first key outcomes is the subject of the next*

Principal Research fellow, Australian Council for Education Research, Australia, e-mail:coates@acer.edu.au**
Associate Professor, Centre for Higher Education Management and Policy, University of
New England, Australia, e-mail: lgoedege@une.edu.au***
Research Project Officer, Centre for Higher Education Management and Policy, Universityof New England, Australia, e-mail: jvander@une.edu.au****
Director and Professor, LH Martin Institute for Higher Education Leadership andManagement, The University of Melbourne, Australia, e-mail: vmeek@unimelb.edu.au

180
section of the paper. We conclude with a few summary statements and an
indication of where the next round of data analysis may take us.

The Australian higher education sector
An exceptional feature of the Australian higher education sector is that thestates have legislative control over higher education institutions, whilst financial
responsibility rests with the Commonwealth. Historically and constitutionally,
all forms of education in Australia have been primarily a matter for the States.
But in the years following the Second World War, there has been substantial andincreasing Federal intervention in higher education. Successive government
decisions have significantly changed the Australian higher education landscapeand ensured that the Federal government would dominate planning and fundingof this sector.
At the end of 2007, the nation’s higher education sector consisted of 37
public universities, some of which are quite large with enrolments in excess of
45,000 students, two small private universities and a number of small specialist
institutions both public and private. In 2005 an Australian branch of a USA
university was established in Adelaide (Carnegie-Melon). Up to mid-2006
there were more than 150 non-self-accrediting higher education providers
registered by the States and Territories. Only the 37 public universities wereconsidered for inclusion in the Australian CAP survey sample.
In 2007, Australia had nearly one million students enrolled in higher
education courses, about one-quarter of whom were overseas students. Up tonow, the defining characteristics of an Australian university strongly endorsed
the principles of unity of teaching and research and a broad, comprehensive
curriculum. But the former Liberal Coalition government actively challenged
this principle, and given the degree of emotion this has invoked amongst theacademic profession, a few more words should be said about it.
Commencing in 2005 and up to the end of 2007, successive Federal
education ministers called for the Commonwealth to assume full legislative as
well as financial control of higher education. This has been motivated, in part,by the desire of the Federal government to introduce more fee-for-service private
higher education providers. In July 2006, the Minister announced, under thebanner of enhancing diversity, that she had achieved agreement with her Stateand Territory counterparts to “provide greater choice for students to study at avariety of high quality higher education institutions”. As indicated by the
Minister, the new set of National Protocols for Higher Education Approval

181
Processes “will allow … higher education providers to accredit their own
courses, bypassing costly and time consuming reaccreditation processes run by
State Governments”. Up to now, only universities could accredit their own
courses. The agreement also included “specialist institutions having access to auniversity title” and the reduction of “research and higher degree teachingrequirements for new universities in their first five years of establishment”(Bishop, 2006). This decision has the potential of transforming the Australianhigher education landscape more than any other decision in the last decade.
However, with the change of Federal government in December 2007 it remains
to be seen whether the new Labor government will continue along a similar
policy line with respect to this issue.
The evolving higher education policy context
Since the early 1990s, the Australian higher education sector has
experienced profound change. This change has been driven by, amongst otherthings, massification – the rapid increase in student numbers that accelerated
throughout the 1980s and 1990s. One of the government’s key strategies tocope with the rapid expansion of higher education has been to encourage
institutions to diversify their funding base and to adopt market-like behaviour.
Australia is possibly the quintessential example of marketisation andinternationalisation of higher education, which has had a profound impact on
how its universities are governed and managed, and which in turn impacts on
employment conditions in a variety of ways. Presently, the government
provides only about 40% of the cost of higher education, and says itself that it nolonger funds but subsidizes higher education. The other main sources offunding are domestic and international student fees, followed by research grants,
consultancies, investments.
In most OECD countries, while private expenditure on higher education has
risen more rapidly than public expenditure, public expenditure has expanded aswell. Australia appears to be the exception (OECD, 2006). Funding ofAustralian higher education increased during the period 1996-2005 (1996 being
the year the present Liberal Coalition government gained power) with respect toall sources of revenue. However, direct public funding from the Federal
Government declined, as is illustrated in Figure 1. HECS in Figure 1 refers to
the Higher Education Contribution Scheme – tuition fees for Australian students
collected through the tax system – introduced in 1990.

182
Funding per Government-Supported University Student (EFTSL) 1996 to 2005 Real 2005 Dollar Values$15,000

Government Grants + HECS
$14,000$13,978$13,904$13,850$13,898$13,744$13,407$13,000$12,724$12,256$12,000$11,000$12,680$12,195$11,128$10,427$10,000$9,977$9,599$9,252$9,000Government Grants$8,188.00$8,000$8,171$7,778$8,494$7,754$7,000$6,000
1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Year

Source: Kniest (2007, p. 26)

Figure 1. Funding per government-supported university student

In the late 1980s, the then Labor government, which initiated the reforms,
explicitly stated that it was not prepared to fund growth entirely from the publicpurse and the current Liberal government has gone even further in demandingthat an increasing proportion of the financing of higher education comes fromsources other than the public purse. In Australia, as elsewhere, the last two
decades have seen the development of a quite different approach to higher
education steering from what prevailed previously, characterized by:・ reductions in public expenditure;・ increased emphasis on efficiency of resource utilisation;
・ increased emphasis on performance measurement, particularly in terms ofoutcomes;・ increased emphasis on demonstrable contribution to the economy of thenation; and・ the strengthening of institutional management and of the policy andplanning role of individual institutions.

183
There has been considerable pressure placed on Australian academic staff tobe more competitive, productive and accountable, while simultaneously being
more entrepreneurial and innovative. While many if not most have risen to thechallenge, their status in society has declined. As Melleuish (2004) comments,“What’s happened over the last 20 years or so is that comparatively academicsalaries have dropped, people no longer listen to academics or have as much
respect for them perhaps as they once had in the past”.
Competitive market steering of higher education supposedly requires strong
corporate style management at the institutional level. And in Australia, as
elsewhere, in recent years there has been a substantial shift towards a moremanagerial approach to running universities, deliberately encouraged bygovernment policy. The push to diversify the funding base and the emphasis
placed on raising revenue from competitive private sources has been one of the
primary factors making university management so difficult and complex(Gallagher, 2000).
Within the changed policy context, many responsibilities have been
devolved to individual universities. But, at the same time, institutions are held
more directly accountable for the effective and efficient use of the funding andother freedoms they enjoy. Moreover, institutions are now placed in a much
more highly competitive environment, and considerable pressure has beenplaced on universities to strengthen management, to become more
entrepreneurial and corporate-like. The large universities with more than
40,000 students and annual budgets that run to billions of dollars, rival in sizeand complexity many private corporations. Institutions must respond quickly
and decisively in order to take advantage of market opportunities. There can belittle doubt that the sheer size and complexity of Australian higher education
demands strong and expert administration at the institutional level.
Nonetheless, changes in the governance and management of Australian higher
education directly concern the re-norming of the academic profession andpossibly a fundamental transformation of the idea of knowledge and of theuniversity itself (Meek, 2003).
We tend to make these observations as relatively detached critical higher
education policy analysts. But to what degree do they actually reflect theperceptions of Australian academics? The need to answer that question was
one of the fundamental reasons for our involvement in the CAP project.

184

Sample design
Sampling plays a critical role in ensuring the validity of survey processes
and outcomes. The sampling process outlined below conforms to theinternational and cross-institutional sampling strategy that has been designed for
the CAP project. This implies that inferences of population characteristics
derived from the survey can be accompanied with accurate and defensible
estimates of precision.
Population definition
The generalisability of results and hence the scope of the study is set
through definition of the population. Desired, excluded and target populations
are defined. The desired population is that about which generalisations are
made. The excluded population represents individuals who are not included in
the study. The target population is the difference between the desired andexcluded populations, and is the list from which the sample has been drawn.
Desired population
According to the international sampling specifications, the CAP populationis “composed of professionals in higher education institutes that offer abaccalaureate degree or higher (Type A of the OECD classification) andprofessional researchers in public research institutes”. The term ‘professionals’
here is interpreted as ‘academic staff’.
As in most countries, in Australia the term ‘academic staff’ covers a wide
range of different roles. An incomplete list includes: Residential Tutor,
Assistant Lecturer, Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Associate Professor, Professor,
Clinical Supervisor, Research Assistant, Research Fellow, Senior Research
Fellow, Honorary Fellow, Sessional Lecturer, Sessional Tutor, Marker, Examiner,
Supervisor, Reader, Principal Research Fellow, Professorial Fellow, Postdoctoral
Fellow, Head, Chair, Dean, Director, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Provost,
Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and Chancellor. Most, but not all, of
these roles are included in the desired population for this survey.
Excluded population
Public research institutes were not included in the Australian CAP study.
Professional staff working at such institutions were therefore not included in the
study, and the results can not be generalised to them. The same is true for thosehigher education institutions not defined as ‘Table A’ providers in the Australian185
context, such as private and overseas providers.
While all Australian universities were invited to take part in the Australian
CAP survey, participation was voluntary and certain institutions elected not to be
involved. In theory, such institutional non-response has the potential tointroduce bias into the sample. In practice, however, the number of institutions
that elected to take part in the Australian CAP survey has been sufficiently highto ensure the validity and relevance of the survey results.
The Australian CAP survey excludes specific academic roles. Broadly,these include adjunct, casual/sessional and honorary roles. Examples from theabove list of roles include Honorary Fellow, Sessional Lecturer, Sessional Tutor,
Marker and Examiner. Note that individuals should only be excluded if one ofthese roles is their substantive role. Thus, a full time Lecturer who also holds
an Honorary Fellowship in another department is not excluded from the
population.
Central senior university executive staff are also excluded from theAustralian CAP survey target population. These include staff working in
positions such as Assistant Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Deputy
Vice-Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and Chancellor.
Target population and sampling frame
In total, 22 institutions agreed to participate in the Australian CAP survey
which is more than half of Australia’s 37 public universities. This large numberof participating institutions provides an initial indication that the study includes arepresentative selection of Australian institutions.
A number of further factors affirm the representativeness of the selection of
institutions. Review of the list indicates that the participating institutions reflect
a wide range of sizes, histories and missions. They therefore can be considered
representative of the 16 institutions that chose not to take part in the study.
With these details in mind, the target population for the Australian CAP
survey includes all academic staff within participating institutions who are
working in Faculties rather than central administration, and who do not haveadjunct, casual or honorary appointments as their substantive position.
Sample Strategy
The Australian CAP survey employed a probabilistic sampling strategy
designed to select a sufficient number of academic staff into the study togenerate powerful and representative statistical estimates at the national level.
The basic approach has taken the form of a systematic random sample across186
participating institutions.
Stratification
Stratification often plays an important role in large-scale samples as it
improves the efficiency of the sample, helps to ensure the representativeness ofthe sample, eliminates potential confusion, and blocks the population along lines
suggested by research and practice. Strata might be defined at the institution
and individual level.
Institutions provide the explicit stratum as separate, independent samples
have been drawn for each institution in the Australian CAP survey. A
systematic selection method was planned to ensure proportional representation ofacademics across these strata.
While no explicit individual-level strata were specified, implicit
stratification helps to ensure that bias in the sample is minimised. A number of
implicit strata within each institution were recognised such as sex, appointment
fraction, term of appointment, academic classification/level, work sector andacademic function.
Implicit stratification was managed by sorting the sampling frame and usinga systematic selection process. Thus, no systematic bias has been introduced
into the sampling process as a result of the selection method or default orderingsin the target population list.
Level of analysis
Large-scale social surveys occur within various contexts, and the ‘level ofanalysis’ is the level at which it is desired that generalisations are made. The‘level of analysis’ should not be confused with the ‘unit of analysis,’ the latterbeing the object of the analysis, which in the CAP study is academic staff.
There are multiple levels of analysis in the CAP survey. The first level ofanalysis is the international level and the second is the national level. The
national level requires an effective sample size of 800.
Multistage selection
Institutions volunteered to participate in the Australian CAP survey inresponse to an invitation sent to all Australian ‘Table A’ universities. In broad
terms, ‘A’ institutions are defined as public providers by the AustralianGovernment.
Table 1 lists participating institutions by state and territory, and institutionalgroup. Australia has eight states and territories: Western Australia (WA),187
Northern Territory (NT), South Australia (SA), Victoria (VIC), New South Wales(NSW), Tasmania (TAS), the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and Queensland(QLD). Australian higher education has three formal institutional groupings:
the Australian Technology Network of Universities (ATN), the Group of Eight(Go8) and Innovative Research Universities (IRU).
Not all Australian
institutions are covered by these three groups. As a result, a number of
additional informal groupings are frequently used. For current purposes,
institutions not included in the ATN, Go8 or IRU in Table 1 have been classified
as either regional (REG) or New Generation Universities (NGU). The numberof institutions in each group and state is shown in brackets beside the label.
Table 1. Institutions participating in the Australian CAP survey
State
WA (4)ATN (5)Go8 (8)

IRU (6)REG

NGU

Curtin University University ofof Technology
Western
Australia

NT (1)Charles Darwin
University

SA (3)

University ofSouth Australia

Flinders
University

VIC (8)RMIT University University of
Melbourne

University ofBallarat

Victoria
University
DeakinUniversity

NSW (10)

University ofSydneyMacquarie
University

Charles Sturt
University

University ofWestern Sydney

Southern Cross
University
University of
New England
University of
Wollongong
TAS (1)
ACT (2)
QLD (8)

University ofCanberra
Queensland
University ofTechnology

University of
Queensland

University ofSouthern
Queensland
University of theSunshine Coast

The distribution of institutions in Table 1 provides assurance as to thenational representativeness of the participating institutions. The institutions

188
cover the range of states and groups. The notable exceptions are that there isno institution participating from the state of Tasmania, and that only two of thesix IRU universities are involved.
Participating institutions supplied a population list from which the staff
sample was drawn. A systematic sampling procedure was used to obtain aprobabilistic sample of staff within each institution. A systematic approach wasused because it was sufficiently parsimonious to be applied consistently acrossinstitutions, and because it ensures proportional representation of academics
across the implicit strata.
Sample size
A national effective sample size of 800 was set for the study through theinternational specifications. This effective sample size has been determined byconsidering the substantive focus of the survey and the kinds of statisticalanalyses likely to be performed.
To achieve an effective sample size of 800, it is necessary for the actual
sample size to be larger than 800 to account for non-response and the clusterednature of the target population. It is necessary to use complex sampling
methods because of the structural characteristics of universities and the higher
education system.
It is important to account for the natural clustering which occurs within
institutions as a result of disciplinary groupings and organisational structures.
Such clustering arises because survey responses can be more homogeneous
within institutions than across the Australian academic community as a whole.
The international sampling specifications propose that a design effect of 2.0
be factored into sample size calculations. This is considered a conservative
estimate, and is based on survey work conducted in the United States. The
observed clustering effect behind this figure is affirmed by a recent Australiansurvey of academic leaders (Scott, Coates & Anderson, forthcoming).
A design effect of 2.0 means that twice the sample size is required toachieve the effective sample size, so a national sample size of 800 × 2 = 1,600
academics was proposed to satisfy the international sampling specifications.
The sample size also needs to be adjusted to reflect anticipated response
rates. Experience in prior studies (Scott, Coates & Anderson, forthcoming)suggests that response rates to surveys tend to hover between 30 and 50%. A
conservative response rate of 30% was assumed for the Australian CAP survey.
This means that the complex sample size needs to be multiplied by 100 / 30. A
design sample of 1,600 × (100 / 30) = 5,333 therefore was identified to meet the189international requirements for this survey. To be conservative, the design
sample size has been rounded upwards to 5,500.
To satisfy the requirements of the international survey, the national design
sample size of 5,500 was allocated proportionally across the participating
institutions, according to the number of academics within each institution.
Drawing the sample
Sampling management
Preparation of the sample involved collaboration between participating
institutions and the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), theagency that coordinated the design and development of the Australian CAP
sample. Rather than supply institutions with the full specifications, a sampling
manual was produced to assist institutions identify relevant academic staff. The
manual provided an introduction to the CAP survey and sampling process, an
overview of the sampling strategy, and key steps for selecting defined academic
staff.
Institutions were asked to provide a full list of academic staff at their
institution from which ACER could draw a sample. For this, they were
provided with a data specification defined in terms of the national statistics
collection. Specific elements included staff e-mail, institution code, sex, work
contract, current duties term, current duties classification type and level, work
sector, academic function.
ACER worked with institutions to ensure the consistency and integrity ofthe data provided. All but one of the 22 sampled institutions provided a list ofacademic staff. Of the remaining 21 institutions, one provided e-mail addresses
only, and one did not provide information on work contracts. Once all data
were received, a number of recordings were conducted, and out-of-range,
duplicate records and individuals in the excluded population were removed.
The first column of Table 2 shows that the cleaned population list comprised
20,563 academic staff members from 21 institutions.
Sample production and verification
The population list was sorted using the variables obtained for the purposesof stratification (sex, work contract, current duties classification, academic
function, and current duties term). A systematic random sample was thenselected for each of the 21 remaining institutions. A total sample size of 5,496
was obtained. The number of staff selected within each institution is shown in
the final column of Table 2.

190
As a final check, the sample statistics were compared with the population
parameters. This showed that the sample was representative of the population
at the participating institutions in terms of sex, work contract, current duties term,
current duties classification, and academic function.
Table 2 presents
comparisons between the distribution of staff in the target population and in theplanned sample.
Secured sample analysis
Sample size and consistency
The online survey was distributed to the 5,496 individuals sampled from thetarget population list. The initial distribution was made between 18 and 26
September 2007, with follow up distributions sent to non-respondents on 3
October, 29 October and 3 December 2007. The fieldwork was closed
mid-December.
Of the 5,496 individuals in the sample, a total of 187 were unable to bereached electronically, either due to their account being closed, or the individual
no longer being employed at the institution. Each undelivered e-mail waschecked for validity and at times an alternative e-mail address was retrieved andused to contact the individual. It was necessary to resend e-mails to staff at one
institution that had initially provided e-mails in an incorrect format.
A total of 153 individuals indicated that they were away from their e-mailduring the survey period, and would not return until after the closing date of thesurvey. While this is a useful figure for working purposes, there is someunreliability in this figure given that not all individuals receive vacation
messages and that some individuals may still respond even though out of theiroffices.
A total of 1,382 individuals logged on to the survey. Only a single versionof the instrument was used and the number of responses varied due to item-level
non-response. While 1,222 individuals responded to the first section, forinstance, only 982 individuals provided comments in the second section of thequestionnaire.
After final validation of responses, 1,252 responses were classified as valid
in that the individual answered one or more questions. After subtracting
undeliverables and out-of-office numbers from the initial sample, this number of
responses implies a response rate of 24.2%. This rate is 5.8 percentage points
below the planned rate of 30%, but certainly in the range of what would be
required for an acceptable response.
More importantly, the complex sample size of 1,252 implies an effective

191
sample size of 626, given the assumed design effect of 2.0, which is 174 below
the planned effective sample size of 800. This has implications for theconsistency of the sample. Specifically, it means that confidence bands aroundpoint estimates would be plus or minus 3.9 rather than 3.5 standard errors. This
is not a large variation in certainty.
Sample distribution and bias
It is important to compare the secured sample against the target population
to test the representativeness and hence generalisability of the sample. Close
correspondence between the designed and secured distributions of staff on key
variables helps provide confidence in statistical estimates.
Table 2 presents figures that allow comparison of the distribution of staff
across the target population, planned sample and secured samples. Note thatcertain percentages do not sum to 100 due to missing data.
In summary, the figures show that:・ the secured sample is distributed proportionately across the 21
institutions despite slight under- and over-representation at a few
institutions;・ females tended to respond more than males compared with population
distributions, although the number of responses for both sexes is high;・ the secured sample is distributed representatively by work contract;・ compared with population distributions, more staff with limited-term
appointments have responded while fewer staff with confirmed tenure
have responded;・ the sample is representative in terms of level of duty; and・ the secured sample is well distributed in terms of academic function.
Overall, while the distribution of respondents in terms of marker variablesin the secured sample varies slightly from that in the population, the variations
are slight. As anticipated in the sample design, the secured sample of responses
appears to be representative of the target population of academics from the 21
institutions. Given the distribution of these institutions across the Australianhigher education sector, it is appropriate to use the survey data to makegeneralisations at the national level.

192
An important consequence of the representativeness of the secured sample
is that it is self-weighting. This was anticipated from the use of explicit andimplicit stratification, and the use of systematic random selection procedures tosample academic staff in the target population. It is confirmed through thefigures presented in Table 2. While sampling weights could be applied toadjust for slight disproportionalities in relation to institution, sex and tenure, thecorrections would be small and would likely not be balanced by the reduction in
analytical parsimony.
Table 2. Population and sample comparisonsInstitution

Targetpopulationn%Plannedsamplen%Securedsamplen%University of Western Australia

1,201

5.8

321

5.8

60

University of Southern Queensland

467

2.3

125

2.3

29

2.3

Curtin University of Technology

1,239

6.0

331

6.0

68

5.4

355

1.7

95

1.7

29

2.3

University of CanberraCharles Darwin University

271

1.3

72

1.3

21

1.7

University of Western Sydney

905

4.4

242

4.4

52

4.2

Charles Sturt University

639

3.1

171

3.1

63

5.0

Victoria University

544

2.6

145

2.6

35

2.8

University of Queensland

2,286

11.1

611

11.1

142

11.3

University of South Australia

1,050

5.1

281

5.1

88

7.0

Flinders University

722

3.5

193

3.5

56

4.5

Deakin University

959

4.7

256

4.7

55

4.4

RMIT University

1,108

5.4

296

5.4

61

4.9

The University of Melbourne

3,105

15.1

830

15.1

172

13.7

Southern Cross University

278

1.4

74

1.3

28

2.2

University of New England

446

2.2

119

2.2

29

2.3

University of Sydney

2,682

13.0

717

13.0

161

12.9

Queensland University of Technology

1,146

5.6

307

5.6

52

4.2

University of the Sunshine Coast

152

0.7

41

0.7

14

1.1

University of Ballarat

241

1.2

64

1.2

20

1.6

University of Wollongong
Total
Sex

Work
contract

4.8

767

3.7

205

3.7

17

1.4

20,563

100.0

5,496

100.0

1,252

100.0

Female

8,700

42.3

2,327

42.8

622

50.5

Male

11,622

56.5

3,105

57.2

610

49.5

Total

20,563

100.0

5,432

100.0

1,232

100.0

Full-time work contract

16,044

82.0

4,291

82.1

1,022

84.1

Fractional full-time work contract

3,511

18.0

936

17.9

193

15.9

Total

19,555

100.0

5,227

100.0

1,215

100.0

193
Current
dutiesterm

Current
dutiesclassification
type andlevel

Academic
function

Limited term 1-60 months

8,122

40.0 3,260

50.0

761

50.0

Limited term > 5 years

826

4.1

215

3.3

41

2.7

Probationary tenurable term

1,963

9.7

521

8.0

145

9.5

Confirmed tenurable term

9,377

46.1

2,518

38.6

574

37.7

Other

34

0.2

6

0.1

1

0.1

Total

20,322100.0

6,520 100.0

Level E

2,287

11.3

614

11.3

122

9.9

Level D

2,455

12.1

654

12.0

153

12.4

Level C

4,660

22.9

1,249

23.0

294

23.9

1,522

100.0

Level B

6,912

34.0

1,842

33.9

449

36.4

Level A

4,008

19.7

1,073

19.8

214

17.4

Total

20,322

100.0

5,432

100.0

1,232

100.0

Teaching only function

582

2.9

153

2.8

32

2.6

Research only function

3,773

18.6

1,005

18.5

219

17.8

Teaching and research function

15,632

76.9

4,183

77.0

951

77.2

335

1.6

91

1.7

30

2.4

20,322

100.0

5,432

100.0

1,232

100.0

Other function
Total

Introducing Colin and Cheryl: the average Australian academics
In this section we present a preliminary overview of the outcomes of theAustralian CAP survey. We must emphasize that this indeed is a first run
through the data, that a full analysis has not been possible due to the limited time
available since the closing of the survey, and that we still are in the process ofcoding the open questions. We therefore can only present some initial results.
As our responses are evenly distributed across males and females, andrepresentative of the target population, we have chosen to present the results notin terms of the ‘average Australian academic’ but rather in the persona of Colin
and Cheryl (two popular names in 1960, the average year of birth of our
respondents). When they are addressed as a couple, the outcomes pertain to theoverall mean score on the item; when addressed separately, the outcomes
obviously reflect the male and female positions. Percentages in brackets in the
text indicate the mean score. The reader is referred to the questionnaire for theindividual questions and their relevant response categories.
Background characteristics
Colin and Cheryl both are married (82%), with their partners having
experienced tertiary education (54%). It is noteworthy, though, that quite a194
number of their female colleagues are single when compared to the men (22%versus 9%). Neither is married to an academic (78%). Whilst almost half of
the Australian male academics would have a full-time working partner (49%) andalmost a third a part-time working partner (30%), three-quarters of the female
academics have a partner who works full-time (77%). Colin and Cheryl have
two children and speak English as their native language. Colin has had no
major career breaks (91%), whilst quite a few of Cheryl’s female colleagues have
had interruptions in their careers (44%). On average these have been for 4
years (sd 4.524). By and large they are the first academics in their families.
Our survey results show that 27% of the respondents have a father with a tertiary
education background, with 20% of the mothers having tertiary experience.
Colin and Cheryl received their bachelor degrees from an Australian
university (63%) in 1985, although quite a number of their colleagues have first
degrees from overseas universities. The majority of these are from British(32%) and US (14%) institutions. Overall, 97% of Australian academics have abachelor or an equivalent degree. Though this may seem a bit strange – 3% of
the academics not having a first degree – this can easily be explained by people
having obtained a first degree in Europe where prior to ‘Bologna’ many first
degrees would be at the masters level. Colin and Cheryl got their masters’degrees in 1991 (66%), also from an Australian university, but once again have
many colleagues who obtained masters elsewhere (32%), predominantly from theUK (29%) and the US (23%). As to the doctorate, our colleagues (73%)
obtained this in 1996 in Australia (71%), with once again those having received
their doctorate from overseas institutions (29%) being mainly from UK (37%)
and US (22%) universities. It also is worth noting that on average, female
Australian academics have obtained their respective degrees two years later than
the average academic.
For many in Australian academe (73%) getting a doctorate means writing athesis/dissertation, without a prescribed set of courses (12%), and fairly
independently on the basis of their own topic selection, supported by a doctoral
fellowship. In their quest for a doctorate, they have received little training inteaching, have not sat on university committees, but have been involved inresearch projects with senior colleagues.
Colin has worked 14 years in approximately three higher education
institutions, mainly on a full-time basis since his first degree. Cheryl’s career issomewhat shorter, being 11 years. Both currently are employed full-time(85%), though part-time employment is somewhat more common for female
Australian academics than for men (19% versus 7%). As to their contracts,

195
both are permanently employed, either tenured (50%) or on a continuous basis(12%). However, in terms of ranks, Australian male academics are more likely
to occupy the higher academic ranks (levels D and E) than female academics as
is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Academic rank by gender

Job satisfaction
Overall, Colin and Cheryl would appear to be rather satisfied with theiracademic life. They score very high (14%) to high (41%) on the direct
satisfaction question, whilst only 13% indicate low or very low (7%) job
satisfaction. This picture is confirmed by fairly strong disagreement with thestatement “If I had to do it over again, I would not become an academic” (mean3.60, sd 1.296 on a scale of 1-5, with 1=strongly agree), and an almost neutralscore on the statement that the current job is a source of considerable personalstrain (mean 2.65, sd 1.258).
These survey results are the more remarkable when we take into account thefact that many Australian academics are of the opinion that working conditions inhigher education have deteriorated. Almost two-thirds of the respondents
believe that this is the case, with a very even distribution between those who
think it has deteriorated much and those who think this has deteriorated verymuch. Only some 9% feel that working conditions have improved since thestart of their career.
This deterioration does not appear to be related to the physical facilities

196
provided by Australian institutions.
Classrooms, laboratories, researchequipment, office space and computer and telecommunications facilities are notconsidered poor (scores range from 2.39-2.81, with 1 being excellent and 5 poor)
whilst library facilities and services are perceived as good (mean 2.04, sd .982).
Colin and Cheryl are more critical when it comes to secretarial support (mean3.42, sd 1.283), teaching support staff (mean 3.30, sd 1.211), and researchsupport staff (mean 3.42, sd 1.225).
In light of this, it is perhaps not unsurprising that Colin and Cheryl aresomewhat cautious in their advice to young persons about to start an academic
career. The mean score on the statement “This is a poor time for any young
person to begin an academic career in my field” is 2.77 (sd 1.387).
The fact that our colleagues are quite satisfied with their jobs does not meanthat they are not considering changing them. Only a quarter of Australianacademics have not considered making major changes in their jobs. Most
popular, which is a bit surprising given the overall job satisfaction, is to consider
working outside the sector (38%), followed by a move to another institution(33%). A quarter of Australian academics has considered leaving the country
for an overseas academic position, whilst 15% has considered a management
position. Colin would appear to be a bit more inclined to consider a move tomanagement than Cheryl (55% versus 45%), as is his thinking about moving
overseas (55% versus 45%).
However, intentions are not the same as action. Only 11% has undertaken
concrete action to move out of higher education, 12% to obtain an overseas
academic position, 19% to change institutions, whilst 9% has undertaken action
to move to a management position in their institution.
Working in an Australian university
Colin and Cheryl spend quite a few more hours on their work than they arecontractually obliged to do. Irrespective of whether classes are in session ornot, on average they spend 50 hours per week on their jobs. When classes are
in session, obviously a good deal of time is spent on teaching (18.3 hrs, 36%),
though they still find time to do research (14.6 hrs, 29%). Administration
throughout the year takes close to 20% of their time. When classes are not insession, research activities increase (23.5 hrs, 47%), although some time still isdevoted to teaching (7.7 hrs, 15%). A summary of this is provided in Figure 3.
This pattern of activities appears to reflect Colin and Cheryl’s academic
interests quite well, which are geared towards the research side of the spectrum.
The majority of Australian academics express a preference for research over197
teaching, with only 7% indicating a preference for teaching. Of those
preferring research, 40% lean towards or have a strong preference for research(29%). These preferences, however, are not matched by their perceptions on
the availability of research funding, which is considered rather poor (mean score
3.50, sd 1.169).

Figure 3. Time spent on activities when classes are in and out of session

Teaching
When teaching, Colin and Cheryl spend most of their time on undergraduate
programs (mean 59%, sd 32.824), with the remainder divided between masters’
and doctoral programs (means: 27%, 22%). Undergraduate classes on average
have some 220 students (sd 259.313), with 37 students in masters’ classes (sd63.913) and 5 in doctoral programs (sd 10.755).
As to their teaching activities, not surprisingly they engage in lecturing/classroom instruction (67%) as well as individualized instruction (58%),
supported through electronic communications with students (66%) and are
involved in the development of course materials (63%) and curricula (54%).
Face-to-face interaction with students outside of class also takes place on aregular basis (61%). Project and laboratory work occur less frequently (37%,30%). A quarter of Australian academics is involved with distance education,whilst a clear minority is active in off-shore teaching (14%).
Colin and Cheryl are quite outspoken about informing their students of the198
implications of plagiarism and cheating (mean 1.66, sd .930) and about the factthat their grading practices strictly reflect levels of student achievement (mean1.85, sd .934). As one would expect given the peculiarities of Australian higher
education, they agree that the number of international students has increased
since they began teaching (mean 2.00, sd 1.167).
As to their approach to teaching, practically oriented knowledge and skills
are emphasized (mean 2.03, sd .970), teaching is reinforced by their research(mean 2.04, sd 1.091), values and ethics are discussed (mean 2.07, sd 1.081), andthey include an international perspective (mean 2.14, sd 1.049). Nevertheless,
Colin and Cheryl complain a bit that they have to spend more time than they liketeaching basic skills due to deficiencies of their students (mean 2.39, sd 1.169).
Quality appears to be on the agenda as well, with encouragement toimprove instructional skills in response to teaching evaluations (mean 2.37, sd
1.107) and with the availability of adequate training courses to enhance teachingquality (mean 2.59, sd 1.070).
Research
Much of the research being done by Australian academics appears to be on
an individual basis (79%), although Colin and Cheryl indicate that they do havecollaborators (88%), and also at other Australian institutions (70%) and overseas(61%).
Perhaps somewhat surprisingly given that almost half of our response
population (43%) belongs to the so-called Group of Eight institutions, according
to Colin and Cheryl their research is much more characterized by anapplied/practical orientation than by a basic/theoretical one (respective means of
1.96, sd 1.072 versus 2.62, sd 1.273). Being multi-disciplinary in nature (mean2.07, sd 1.134), it is both international in scope and orientation (mean 2.23, sd
1.267), socially oriented (mean 2.39, sd 1.349), and not much geared towards thecommercialisation of outcomes (mean 3.93, sd 1.304). The latter is supportedby the fact that only 14% of Australian academics indicate that they have been
involved in technology transfer. Clearly, for a better understanding of theseoutcomes, some further analysis along the lines of institutional type, disciplinary
background and field of study needs to be undertaken.
In terms of outputs over the last three years, Colin and Cheryl mainly write
book chapters and/or academic articles (mean 7.80, sd 12.083) and present
papers at conferences (mean 6.22, sd 7.342). Research reports (mean 2.92, sd
5.427) and newspaper/magazine articles (mean 2.96, sd 8.746) feature somewhat
less, but nevertheless appear in line with the focus of their research discussed

199
above. Clearly, given the large standard deviations further analysis of theseoutcomes is needed as well.
In line with the funding and incentive regime in Australia, the majority of
publications are peer reviewed (67%), and are co-authored with other Australiancolleagues (52%). Not surprisingly in light of the relative lack of availability ofhigh impact academic publication outlets in Australia, a large proportion (45%) ispublished overseas. Although 61% of our respondents have indicated that theycollaborate with international colleagues, this appears not to lead to vast numbersof joint publications: 20% of the publications are co-authored with overseas
colleagues.
As we have seen in terms of teaching and warning about plagiarism, Colin
and Cheryl are also very outspoken in the sense of their research complying withethical guidelines (mean 1.27, sd .608). They strongly adhere to the principlethat research results should be freely available to other researchers and thecommunity (mean 1.58, sd .825) and are quite neutral as to the influence of
external sponsors or clients on their research (mean 2.75, sd 1.381). Somewhat
surprisingly, given the previous responses on commercialisation and technology
transfer, they indicate that their institutions emphasize commercially-oriented
research. Most probably, though some further analysis is needed, this can be
explained by the addition in the questionnaire of “or applied research” since wehave seen earlier that the applied nature of Australian research is a quite striking
feature. By and large Colin and Cheryl do not feel that restrictions on the
publication of results from either public or privately-funded research haveincreased during their careers (means of 3.55 and 3.43 respectively), though they
are of the opinion that high expectation to increase research productivity (mean2.05, sd 1.073) and to a slightly lesser extent expectation of useful results (mean2.37, sd 1.191) are a threat to the quality of research. They do not support thenotion that research funding should be concentrated (targeted) on the mostproductive researchers (mean 3.24, sd 1.212), but are quite clear about the factthat pressures to raise external research funding have increased since they began
their careers (mean 1.58, sd .915).
The latter is an interesting observation if related to the sources of funding
and the percentage of respondents that indicate that they have received funding
from these sources. The major funders for Australian academic research appear
to be the research councils (49%, sd 37.681), with 41% of our respondents
receiving grants from them. Institutional funding follows this (44%, sd 41.101),though clearly many more academics benefit from this (61%). Government
agencies appear as the third source of funding being responsible for 32% of the200
funding for 34% of Australian academics.
Industry, foundations andinternational organizations play a significantly smaller role (20%, 17%, 10%
respectively) though there is still quite a substantial group benefiting from them
(26%, 24%, 20%). It should be noted that 3% of respondents reported that a
proportion of their research is ‘self-funded’.
Management
When it comes to influence, Colin and Cheryl as individual faculty
members perceive that they have quite a bit of influence over the establishmentof international linkages – in fact they are the key players here (42%), thoughinstitutional managers are seen to be influential in this area as well (32%). Alsoin terms of setting internal research priorities, they believe that they have a good
bit of influence (23%), but not as much as institutional managers (35%).
The overall picture that the survey shows when it comes to influence at theinstitutional level is one of shared powers between institutional/unit managers
and Faculty committees, with the exception of setting budgetary priorities, whichvery largely is seen to be in the hands of the managers at the institutional (56%)
and Faculty (21%) level. Interestingly, the influence of government or external
stakeholders on internal management is considered to be marginal, with thepossible exception of research evaluation. Whether the latter is the result of the
proposed introduction by the former Howard government of the Research
Quality Framework that has now been abandoned by the new Rudd government
probably will remain an untested hypothesis.
Students also are seen as marginal players, with the exception of evaluatingteaching. Teaching evaluation, in fact, is the one aspect of institutional
management that has the most ‘spread influence’ over all actors.
For Colin and Cheryl, this means that they feel they have a fair bit of
influence over what goes on at the departmental level, a little at the school level,
but not very much at the institutional level. Most illustrative in this respect are
the scores on the ‘not at all influential’ category: 22% at the department level,
48% at the school level, and 67% at the institutional level.
Despite our observation about shared powers, for Colin and Cheryl one ofthe defining characteristics of their institution is a top-down management style(mean 1.93, sd 1.084) with cumbersome administrative processes (mean 1.87, sd
1.051), and a strong performance orientation (mean 2.16, sd 1.035).
Collegiality is not very apparent with respect to decision-making processes(mean 3.55, sd 1.090), and communication between management and academics
is not considered to be very good (mean 3.50, sd 1.165), a characterisation that

201
often is associated with managerialism.
When it comes to these managers, our respondents are quite reserved intheir judgements. With the exception of their view that their university shouldplay an active role in the local community (mean 1.86, sd .835), they are more orless neutral on the statements provided to them. Clearly, some further analysis
is needed to make sense out of the data on institutional management.

Conclusion
We started our paper by summarizing the major changes that Australianhigher education has experienced over the recently past decades. For manyobservers within and outside the system, these changes have been profound andsometimes quite dramatic. The results of the national survey amongst
Australian academics does support these views. There has been much change,
conditions are perceived to have deteriorated, there is much pressure to perform,
and there is a perception of managerialism within the sector. Yet, the survey
results also show that this is but one side of the coin of Australian academe.
The other side is one of job satisfaction, of relative autonomy, of international
collaboration, and of involvement.
The apparent fact that Australian academe is multi-faceted comes as such as
no surprise. But it is clear that our preliminary analysis has only skimmed thesurface. A second analysis along the variables used for explicit and implicit
stratification no doubt will shed further light on the complexities of the sector.
This will answer some of the more obvious questions, such as does rank
influence perceptions, is tenure related to job satisfaction, is the nature ofresearch related to the type of institution, does the discipline play a role?
It will take a good deal of time and analysis to fully reap the wealth of
information contained in the Australian CAP data. But once done, we areconvinced that it will seriously enhance our understanding of the sector. An
essential component to this also will be to benchmark our data to the overall
international data set. For it is only through such an international comparative
analysis that we truly can understand the uniqueness as well as thecommonalities of Australian academe.

References
Bishop, J. (2006). Media Release: Greater Diversity in a High Quality Higher Education

202
Market. 7 July, Media Centre: DEST. Retrieved 04 December 2006 fromhttp://www.dest.gov.au/Ministers/Media/Bishop/2006/07/B005070706.asp
Gallagher, M. (2000). The emergence of entrepreneurial public universities in Australia.
Higher Education Division Occasional Paper Series 00/E. Canberra: DETYA.
Kniest, P. (2007). Who is being Selective in their choice of university funding data? The
Advocate, 14(1), 26-27.
Meek, V.L. (2003). Introduction. In A. Amaral et al. (eds.), The Higher Education Managerial
Revolution (pp. 1-29). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Melleuish, G. (2004). Why John Howard is Hated, Radio National – Counterpoint 12/07/2004.
Retrieved 11 January 2006 from http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/counterpoint/stories/s1147824.htm
OECD (2006). Education at a Glance. Paris: OECD.
Scott, G., Coates, H., & Anderson, M. (forthcoming). Learning Leaders in Times of Change:
Academic Leadership Capabilities for Australian Higher Education. Sydney: Carrick
Institute.

203

Governance and Decision-Making Related to
Academic Activities: the case of higher educational
institutions in Malaysia

Muhamad Jantan∗ and Morshidi Sirat∗∗

Introduction and Overview
This paper analyses the data set from the recently completed survey on the“Changing Academic Profession in Malaysia”. The primary aim of this paper is
to highlight an emerging pattern of university governance and decision-making
process at the Faculty or departmental level, specifically with respect toacademic and academic-related issues. In this paper we are not concerned withthe governance that shapes the relationship between the central government andthe university (system governance) for this has been discussed in some detail in
Abdul Razak, Sarjit and Morshidi (2007).
The governance of public
universities in Malaysia is continually being re-examined in light of thetransformation in higher education and the changing role of universities vis-à-vis
the government (and other stakeholders) (Abdul Razak, Sarjit & Morshidi, 2007,p.62). In this paper, we are interested in three other types of governance:
institutional governance, college governance and departmental governance.
What are the implications of changes in the governance of universities,
particularly those affecting the academic and academic-related activities of theacademe? Are academics more empowered and what are the degrees ofdecentralization? How much control is exerted on the activities of academia
and who gets to evaluate them? Where are the locations of decision-making∗

Professor and Dean, Research Platform for Social Transformation, Universiti Sains Malaysia,
Malaysia, e-mail: mjantan@usm.my∗∗
Professor and Director, National Higher Education Research Institute (IPPTN), Universiti
Sains Malaysia, Malaysia, e-mail: morshidi@usm.my

204
authority? Where are the locations of evaluation authority? How influential
are the academics themselves and where do they exert their influence?
However, the coverage of these three types of governance in this paper mayvary substantially. This is because the theme of this paper is to illustrate how
governance at both the university and faculty level is shaped and determined bycertain groups of academics cum administrators who are very close to the locus
of power, and thus were able to exploit the ‘system’ as a basis for accumulating
power for themselves.
Our analysis reveals complex and multilateral relationships between the
major actors, both academics and administrators, involved in the governing
system and decision-making process within the higher education institutions in
Malaysia.

Literature Review
The literature has indicated two different but complementary approaches tothe study of the internal processes of university governance. The first, fromorganizational and management theories, focuses on a study of the wholeorganization and this is generally exemplified by studies on organizationalmodels of universities. Typically, these studies would investigate issues such asdecision-making processes, organizational cultures and characteristics. The
second, which is heavily dependent on arguments and theories in politicalscience and sociology, is generally less preoccupied by the organization itself
than by the reforms that have an impact on the governing structures inuniversities. Issues or aspects of interest for studies in this category are thecomposition and working of the university senates, the college, and the academic
leadership at all levels of university administrations such as university presidents,
vice-chancellors or rectors, deans, central administrators, department chairs.
The first approach to the study of university governance is mostly dedicated to‘process and structure’ (Becher & Kogan, 1992), while the second focuses moreon the ‘actors’ of the governance system of universities. In this paper wethought it is useful to analyse university governance and decision-making
processes from both approaches. In doing so we are able to identify both theprocesses and the actors involved in university governance at the same time.
While there are many attempts to describe higher education institutions, inparticular universities, in terms of organisation, the literature identifies several
descriptive models. It appears that these models have been identified in an
attempt to describe the nature of the organisation of universities since the 1960s.

205
According to Mignot-Gérard (2002), in the beginning it was fashionable todescribe universities as organisations thriving on the basis of ‘collegiality’. On
this basis, decisions were arrived at as a result of long democratic debates among
the community of academic peers, a community that was able to regulate itself
and coordinate actions without any need for hierarchical authority (Goodman,
1962; Millett, 1962). However, the collegial model was seen as too consensual
and was noted as not reflecting the actual decision-making process in universities.
Baldridge’s (1971) ‘political model’ was based on the assumption that conflicts
and bargaining between disciplines (or Faculties) may actually reflect the realdecision-making process in universities, at least in relation to academic andacademic-related matters. Arguably, this model was considered as appropriate
if seen in the context of decision-making processes within universities,
particularly in times of budgetary and resource constraints. Yet again, bothcollegial and political models are based on a strong underlying hypothesis
reflecting consensus on the one hand and conflict on the other (Mignot-Gerard,2002). In this situation of conceptual limbo, Pfeffer and Salancik (1974, citedin Mignot-Gerard 2002) argued that faculties are rational actors struggling for
influence and able to mobilize external resources in order to maximize theirindividual interests. It can be argued that, this model also assumes thatdecisions on budget allocations involve an identified and stabilized group ofactors, who bargain over a clearly defined period.
Work on conceptualising a descriptive model for the organisational structureof higher education institutions to address the conceptual shortcomings of theprevious models continued and in the late 1970s Weick introduced the notion of“loosely coupled-systems”. According to Weick (1976), the determining
characteristics of such institutions are “a lack of coordination; a relative absenceof regulations; little linkage between the administrative management and theacademic staff; a lack of congruence between structure and activity; differencesin methods, aims and missions among different departments; little
interdependence among departments; infrequent inspection; and a lack oftransparency of much that happens”.
In fact, earlier in 1972, Cohen and March (cited in Mignot-Gérard, 2002)
had studied universities, and subsequently invented the metaphor of ‘organizedanarchy’, describing the institutions as having three general characteristics: 1)
they have inconsistent and ill-defined goals and preferences, so that theintentionality of organizational action becomes problematic; 2) organizational
processes and technology are unclear or poorly understood by the members of
the organization; and 3) there is fluid and part-time participation.

206
Mignot-Gérard (2002) noted that by the end of the seventies, consensual
and rational models, which were the basis of many conceptual formulations,were replaced by more ‘anarchistic models’ of universities. But then, it wassoon to be realised that bureaucratic, managerial, or authoritative styles,
characteristics of the anarchistic models, did not fit in the evolving university
context. In fact, Kogan (2007, p.162) noted that the dominant description
depicting university organisations as a duality, namely the collegium and thehierarchy/bureaucracy, is really an oversimplification of the real situation ofuniversity governance and internal processes. Kogan (2007, p.162) argued that“the changing tasks of higher education have led to changes in internal power
relationships, including the precipitation of hybrid roles”. Furthermore,
Mignot-Gérard (2002) reasoned that recent developments in the university
environment and the pervasiveness of the notion of ‘manageralism’ and ‘value
for money’ in higher education have led to several experiments with notions ofmanagement, steering and accountability as underlying building blocks in thegovernance of universities. The concept of an ‘entrepreneurial university’ is
one of the outcomes of such experiments.

Methodology
This study is part of a larger study that looks at the changes in the academic
profession worldwide. It involves no less than 22 countries using a common
methodology, to allow for cross-national comparisons. However, some degreeof flexibility is in-built into the survey design to accommodate the uniquedifferences that exist between nations. This section reports on the survey
instrument, sampling and the data analysis deployed in the Malaysian survey.
Instrumentations and Questionnaire Design
As stated earlier, this paper only reports on issues related to governance of
higher educational institutions in Malaysia. Therefore the primary focus is on
the issue of location of decision-making power, the level of influence individual
faculty has at the various levels of the organizational hierarchy and theevaluation authority for academic activities. Location of decision-making
power of academic activities is measured on a scale of 1 to 6 with 1 representing
the students, whilst 6 represents external authority/owner (government or major
stakeholders). A larger number on the scale reflects a lower level in thehierarchy of decision-making. The decisions involved include selection of key
administrators, choosing new faculty, promotion and tenure decisions, budget

207
priorities, teaching load, admission standards for students, approval of new
programs, evaluation of teaching and research, establishing research priorities,
and establishing international linkages.
The second dimension of governance addressed in the study relates to thelevel of influence an individual academic has at the three levels of theorganization, namely departmental or unit level, the Faculty of school or college,
and the institutional level. These three items were measured on a 4-point
Likert-like scale from very influential (1), to not at all influential (4).
Additionally a “not applicable” response was also included.
The third dimension of governance addresses the question of who regularly
evaluates the teaching, research and service work of the individual academic.
These three items were measured on a nominal scale to include categories suchas “no one at all”, students, external reviewers, senior administrative staff,
departmental peers, head of department, and members of other departments.
The full questionnaire also captures other issues such as the general work
situation and environment, teaching, research, professional career history andpersonal information. The English version of the questionnaire (which wasagreed by all 22 countries taking part in this global study) with minor
modifications for the Malaysian context, was translated into the national
language using a back-to-back translation technique. It was pilot tested in oneof the public higher education institutions and, except for minor clarifications,the common complaint was the time taken to complete the questionnaire. This
however is inevitable due to the wide coverage of the full study.
Population and Sampling
The target population of the study is academics working in higher education
institutions (HEIs) based in Malaysia. HEIs included in this study, are thoseclassified as universities or university colleges recognised by the Ministry ofHigher Education, as they are the only institutions that offer education at degreelevel. At the time of the study, there were 18 HEIs that were publicly funded
and 16 private ones. However, one public HEI, which was only recently
established, was excluded for lack of data. Similarly, seven private HEIs were
excluded from this study. From the HEIs included in this study, secondary data
regarding the number of academics, classified by their academic rank as well as
their discipline, were sought either directly (from the HEI) or indirectly from the
Ministry of Higher Education. A total of 13,546 academics form the target
population of this study. These data form the basis for the sample of the study.
The co-ordinating body of the global study agreed upon an effective sample

208
size of 800 respondents. Targeting a response rate of 40%, a gross sample of
4,000 is required to achieve the effective sample size. This number was thenallocated in proportion to the categories (academic rank and discipline) withineach institution. Upon rounding up, the final sample is as shown in Table 1
below. The final choice of the respondents within each cell at each HEI was
made using a systematic random sampling design with a single random start.
The final sample that responded is as shown in Table 2.
Table 1. Sample Sizes (by discipline, academic rank and type of institution)
Public HEIs

Private HEIs

Sample Size
Professor
Discipline
MedicalEngineering
Science
Arts
Total

66
61
105
78
310

Associate
Professor

96
139
239
176
650

Lecturer

Professor

363
628
773
930
2694

14
10
4
3
31

Associate
Professor

17
22
22
19
80

Lecturer

38
106
70
135
349

Total

594
966
1213
1341
4114

Table 2. Final Sample (responses)
Public HEIs

Private HEIs

Sample Size
Professor
Discipline

Associate
Professor

Lecturer

Professor

Associate
Professor

Lecturer

Total

13
25
51
1
2
14
106
5
32
135
4
21
73
270
Science
19
31
73
2
7
43
175
Arts
10
34
167
2
5
67
285
Total
47
122
426
9
35
197
836
Note: A total of 1,176 responded; but 340 of them did not indicate one of the three categories
and were therefore treated as missing data.
MedicalEngineering

The total number of questionnaires returned was 1,176 giving a response
rate of 28.6%, whilst the response rate for each of the cells in the above
categorization varies from a low of 8.2% for engineering professors in public
HEIs to a high of 95.5% for associate professors of engineering in the private
HEIs. The overall response rate (that can be categorized) was 20.3%, which
represents a higher percentage than is typical of most surveys in Malaysia.
Table 3 provides a summary of the profile of the respondents in this survey.
We note that the male and female distribution is about equal, and the majority

209(81%) are married or with a partner, with 70% of their spouses being employedfull-time. The majority of respondents’ spouses have tertiary level education(80%) and are non-academics (69%). Of those who are married, only 19% of
the respondents do not have children and a large majority (95%) have had nointerruptions in their careers to care for children or elderly family members. In
so far as respondents’ parents are concerned, the fathers of only 22% and themothers of 12% had tertiary level education. Most of the respondents are of the
Malay race and therefore their mother tongue is Malay; but a majority use
English in their teaching and research. In terms of age, though we have
respondents as old as 72 years, the average is about 40, with a mean academic
career of 11 years. Since they obtained their first degrees, the careers of our
respondents also saw them spending time in other countries. On average they
have spent 10 years in the country where they obtained their first degree, 11
years in the country of their current employment, and only 2 years on average inother countries.
Data Collection Procedure
The manner in which the questionnaires were distributed and collected is asfollows. First, the Ministry of Higher Education alerted the participating HEIsof the impending survey. A resident official of each of the participating HEIs
was appointed as the project field official (some of them are members of the
project team) and remunerated accordingly. These officials were invited to a
one-day workshop that briefed them of the rationale of the study, the content of
the questionnaire, the identification of the respondents, the data collection
procedure and other administrative matters related to the distribution andcollection of the questionnaires. A two-month period was given for the
purposes of data collection. The final samples of respondents are as describedin Table 2 above.
Table 3. Demographic Profile of the Respondents
ProfileGENDER
Male
FemaleFAMILIAL STATUS
Married/partner
SingleOthersFrequency

%

603
552

52.21
47.79

933
206
14

80.92
17.87
1.21

210
AGE (years)
Mean
Standard Deviation
EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF SPOUSE (IF MARRIED)
Full-timePart-time
None

39.38
39.38

Max. 72

665
54
246

68.91
5.60
25.49

ACADEMIC STATUS OF SPOUSE
Yes
No

298
660

31.11
68.89

NUMBER OF CHILDREN LIVING WITH RESPONDENT
One
TwoThree or more
None

180
256
385
191

17.79
25.30
38.04
18.87

62
1005

5.81
94.19

3.21
2.45

Min. = 0Max. = 9

252
403
308
137

22.91
36.64
28.00
12.45

132
352
374
241

12.01
32.03
34.03
21.93

707
149
22
9

79.62
16.78
2.48
1.01

792
209
48
53

71.87
18.97
4.36
4.81

INTERRUPTION IN EMPLOYMENT
Yes
NoYears of Interruption (years)
Mean
Standard Deviation
HIGHEST EDUCATION LEVEL OF...
FATHER
Tertiary
SecondaryPrimary
No formal Education
MOTHER
Tertiary
SecondaryPrimary
No formal Education
SPOUSE
Tertiary
SecondaryPrimary
No formal Education
ETHINICITY
Malay
ChineseIndianOthers

211
MOTHER TONGUE
Malay
EnglishOthers

803
86
268

69.40
7.43
23.16

LANGUAGE USE IN TEACHING
Malay
EnglishOthers

238
887
32

20.24
75.43
2.72

LANGUAGE USE IN RESEARCH
Malay
EnglishOthers

148
982
14

12.94
85.84
1.22

YEARS SPENT SINCE AWARD OF FIRST DEGREE (yrs.)
In country of first degree
In country of current employment (if different)
In another country

10.34
11.36
2.26

Findings
The discussion that ensues begins with the findings from the descriptive
statistics and a factor analysis of the three issues of governance that form thefocus of this paper. Whether these findings vary by academic rank, the type of
institution and discipline were explored next using both parametric andnon-parametric techniques.
Location of Decision-Making PowerOne of the issues of governance identifies the location of decision-making
power in relation to decisions related to the allocation of resources (humanresources such as administrators and faculty as well as financial), teaching andresearch. Table 4a provides the frequency distribution, while Table 4b provides
the associated row percentages, of the location of decision-making power foreach of 11 decisions.
The Tables 4a and 4b indicate the following:・ Most decisions are still vested with the top management and head ofunits. Students and individual faculty play minimal roles (in fact
students only play a role in evaluating teaching). Faculty committees
play a moderate role in decision-making almost a quarter of the time.
・ In terms of decision areas, the involvement of government and external

212
stakeholders is limited to selecting faculty, key administrators andapproval of new academic programs. Students’ involvement is limited
to evaluation of teaching. Faculty committee involvement is limited
to a unit’s internal spheres of teaching and research related matters.
Heads of units are involved in all the decision areas whereas top
management is involved in virtually all areas except for teaching load
and teaching evaluation.
If one treats the locations as ordinal in nature, then Table 5 below provides
a mean and standard deviation analysis of decision-making location, whilst Table
6 summarizes comparative evaluation by using a Friedman test of related
samples.
Tables 5 and 6 indicate the following:
・ The Friedman test clearly indicates that there are significant differencesin the ranking of each of the decision areas. Selecting key
administrators is the lowest (related to the source of power residing
with the government and external stakeholders), whereas evaluatingteaching is the highest ranked decision areas (indicating that teachingevaluation rests with the lowest group of individuals in the chain of
hierarchy, namely individual faculty and students).
・ The above is also supported by the mean levels where the lower meanlevels indicate that the source of decision-making power is withgovernment and top management. We note that the mean for selecting
key administrators is 2.05 indicating that in general, top management
has the power to make such decisions. On the other hand, the meanlevel for teaching evaluation is 3.71 indicating that decision lies withunit head and Faculty committee. Similar interpretations can beoffered for the other decision areas.
Further, when the locations of the decision-making power were factor
analyzed, three clear factors emerged as shown in Table 7 and we named thesethree factors as “resource related decision” (factor 2), “teaching related decision”(factor 3) and “research and linkage decisions” (factor 1). When tested for
differences (Friedman test) clearly the three decision areas are significantly
different with resource related decisions being more centralized at the top
management and ministry level, whilst research related decisions are at the
departmental level.

213
Table 4a. Sources of Power (Frequency)
Decision Areas

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Selecting key administrators

267

568

208

38

11

0

Choosing new faculty

29

352

590

109

25

0

Making faculty promotion and tenure decisions

48

553

426

81

7

0

Determining budget priorities

75

530

412

76

11

0

Determining the overall teaching load of faculty

15

102

738

177

62

0

Setting admission standards for undergraduate students

98

329

420

214

19

0

Approving new academic programs

214

492

226

149

9

0

Evaluating teaching

20

77

547

199

61

189

Setting internal research priorities

27

270

488

203

92

1

Evaluating research

28

285

405

312

58

0

Establishing international linkages

64

636

246

74

70

2

Total

885

4194

4706

1632

425

192

(1): Government or External Stakeholders; (2) Institutional Managers (VC, DVC, etc.); (3) Academic UnitManagers (Dean, Head of Dept.); (4) Faculty Committee; (5) Individual Committee; (6) Students
Note: The total in each column or row is not the same as the total sample size: respondents are allowed to tick
more than one location of decision-making i.e. more than one decision-maker may be involved in each of
the decisions.

Table 4b. Sources of Power (%)
Decision Areas

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Selecting key administrators

24.5

52.0

19.0

3.5

1.0

(6)

Choosing new faculty

24.45

52.01

19.05

3.48

1.01

Making faculty promotion and tenure decisions

4.30

49.60

38.21

7.26

0.63

Determining budget priorities

6.79

48.01

37.32

6.88

1.00

Determining the overall teaching load of faculty

1.37

9.32

67.46

16.18

5.67

Setting admission standards for undergraduate students

9.07

30.46

38.89

19.81

1.76

Approving new academic programs

19.63

45.14

20.73

13.67

0.83

Evaluating teaching

1.83

7.04

50.05

18.21

5.58

17.29

Setting internal research priorities

2.50

24.98

45.14

18.78

8.51

1.00

Evaluating research

2.57

26.19

37.22

28.68

5.33

Establishing international linkages

5.86

58.24

22.53

6.78

6.41

0.18

(1): Government or External Stakeholders; (2) Institutional Managers (VC, DVC, etc.); (3) Academic UnitManagers (Dean, Head of Dept.); (4) Faculty Committee; (5) Individual Committee; (6) Student
Note: Percentages in bold type indicate the largest groups of decision makers for each decision.

214
Table 5. Descriptive Analysis of Decision-Making Power
Decision Areas

Mean

Selecting key administrators

2.05

Std. Deviation
0.8145Choosing new faculty

2.770.7494Making faculty promotion and tenure decisions

2.50

0.7208Determining budget priorities

2.47

0.7636

Determining the overall teaching load of faculty

3.15

0.7164

Setting admission standards for undergraduates students

2.75

0.9344

Approving new academic programs

2.31

0.9644

Evaluating teaching

3.71

1.2685

Setting internal research priorities

3.06

0.9398

Evaluating research

3.08

0.9270Establishing international linkages
2.50
0.9540Note: The lower the mean values, the higher in the organizational hierarchy is the decision-making
location

Table 6. Friedman Test for Equality of Means of Related Samples
Decision Areas

Mean Rank

Selecting key administrators

3.64

Choosing new faculty

6.21

Making faculty promotion and tenure decisions

5.24

Determining budget priorities

5.08

Determining the overall teaching load of faculty

7.60

Setting admission standards for undergraduates students

6.14

Approving new academic programs

4.49

Evaluating teaching

8.45

Setting internal research priorities

7.08

Evaluating research

7.14

Establishing international linkages

4.93

Chi-Square = 2657.10; Asymptotic Significance = .000
Note: The higher the mean rank, the lower in the organizational hierarchy is the location of thedecision-making power

Extent of Influence of the Academics
To what extent the individual faculty feel that they can exert influence inthe governance of the institutions they are employed in is explored at the threelevels of department, Faculty and institution. Table 8 below provides thefrequencies as well as the overall mean levels. As expected, the level ofinfluence decreases as we move up the organizational hierarchy, with negligible
influence at the institutional level. Furthermore, when tested using theFriedman test, the results indicated that the extent of influence differs
significantly (p-value<0.01).

215
Table 7. Factor Analysis of Sources of Decision-Making Power
Component

Decision Areas

Factor 1

Factor 2

Selecting key administrators

0.70

Choosing new faculty

0.71

Making faculty promotion and tenure decisions

0.74

Determining budget priorities

0.63

Factor 3

Determining the overall teaching load of faculty

0.51

Setting admission standards for undergraduates students

0.81
0.77

Approving new academic programs
Evaluating teaching

0.50

Setting internal research priorities

0.82

Evaluating research

0.83

Establishing international linkages

0.59

MSA = .808: % variance captured = 54.3%
Note: Factor loadings of 0.3 or less were suppressed.

Table 8. Extent of Influence of Academics
Degree of Respondent's Influence

Level of Organizational Hierarchy
Departmental

Faculty

Institution

Very influential

99 (9.6%)

62 (6.4%)

15 (1.8%)

Somewhat influential

389 (37.9%)

249 (25.7%)

103 (12.4%)

A little influential

397 (38.7%)

394 (40.7%)281 (33.9%)

Not at all influential

141 (13.7%)

264 (27.2%)

430 (51.9%)

1026

969

829

Total

2.565
2.888
3.358
Mean
Note: 1 = very influential; 2 = somewhat influential; 3 = a little influential; 4 = not influential at all
Total responses do not add up to total respondents nor are they equal for all levels due to missing
values.

Table 9. Evaluation Authority (Frequency)
Evaluators

Teaching

Research

Service

Peers in department or unit

331

291

269

Head of department or unit

732

584

835

Members of other department in the institution

150

264

224

Senior administrative staff at the institution

184

230

418

Students

925

60

206

External reviewers

223

343

116

Self-assessment

537

447

452

No one at or outside my institution

33

47

43

216
Evaluation Authority
Table 9 provides the frequency distribution for the third dimension of thegovernance addressed in this paper, namely that which relates to the question of“Who evaluates the activities of the academics?” It indicates the following
results.
・ Teaching is evaluated largely by the students and the heads of units.
・ Research evaluation activities are carried out by heads of units andexternal reviewers.
・ Evaluation of service of academics is carried out by heads ofdepartments and senior administrative staff.
・ We note that self-assessment is also a significant part of the evaluationof academic activities.
・ Though peer evaluation (by peers in the same unit) plays a role inevaluating all activities of an academic, it is still rated below
self-assessment.
・ Heads of departments or units still dominate the monitoring of theactivities of their academic subordinates.
Differences in Governance between Public and Private HEIs
In the Malaysian context, the private institutions of higher educations areprimarily driven by profit motives and operate just as any business entity. On
the other hand, the public institutions were established with social agenda inmind. Due to the contrasting philosophies that underlie these two types ofhigher educational institutions, it is relevant to discuss the differences (if any) in
the governance of these two types of HEIs.
Table 10 summarizes the t-test analysis (independent sample) for thelocation of decision-making as well as the extent of influence the academic hasat the three levels of the organizational hierarchy. Table 11 provides a similar
analysis for distribution of the location of the evaluation authority.
On the whole, the tables indicate only minor differences in the governanceof the public and private HEIs. In terms of location of decision-making power,
significant differences occur in resource related decisions, particularly in theappointment of key administrators and budgetary decisions, as well as in theapproval of academic programs. In appointing key administrators, the decisionlies with the ministry and top management in the public HEIs, whilst in private
HEIs, it is shared between top management and departmental heads. Budget
priorities in the public HEIs are more decentralized, on average, within top
management and heads of department, whilst the power rests more with

217
institutional managers in the private HEIs. Surprisingly, the decision-making
power for approval of new programs is more decentralized in the private HEIs
compared to their public counterparts, probably because of the market driven
nature of the HEIs, where expert knowledge is likely to reside at departmental
level.
In terms of the extent of influence the academics exert, we find thatsignificant differences occur at the departmental and Faculty levels only, not at
the institutional level, where academics in the public HEIs are more influential
compared to their counterparts in the private HEIs. In terms of the evaluation
authority for academic activities, there is very little difference between public
and private HEIs, though minor difference can be seen with regard to evaluationof research activities.
Table 10. Location of Decision-Making Power
Mean Values
PublicPrivate
HEIs
HEIs
Location of Decision-Making Power
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
Location of Decision-making: Resource Decisions
Location of Decision-making: Teaching Related
Decisions
Location of Decision-making: Research and Linkage
Decisions
Extent of Academic Influencet-valuep-value

1.96
2.76
2.49
2.51
3.17
2.73
2.27
3.69
3.04
3.05
2.50
2.43

2.29
2.81
2.56
2.38
3.12
2.81
2.43
3.73
3.13
3.18
2.52
2.52

-5.89
-0.98
-1.55
2.32
1.15
-1.38
-2.49
-0.52
-1.39
-1.93
-0.29
-2.22

0.00000.32870.12110.0206
0.24880.16760.01280.60220.16350.05350.77300.0265

2.73

2.79

-1.30

0.1941

3.08

3.15

-1.45

0.1480

2.60
2.46
2.27
0.0235
Departmental Level
Faculty or School Level
2.92
2.78
2.14
0.0325
Institutional Level
3.38
3.32
1.11
0.2655
Maximum Sample Size
804
283
Minimum Sample Size
586
240
Notes: For location of decision making power, lower mean values indicate that the decision making poweris located higher up in the hierarchy, with 1 being with the government or external stakeholders and6 being with students.
The extent of influence was measured on a 4 point scale with 1 (very influential) and 4 ( not at all
influential)

218
(%)

Table 11. Evaluation Authority
Percentage of Respondents

Teaching

Research

ServicePublicPrivatePublicPrivatePublicPeers in department or unit

10.76*

10.42

12.89

12.97

10.41

Private
10.71

Head of department or unit

23.43

23.64

25.32

27.20

33.62

29.87

Members of other department in institution

5.13

3.76

12.43

8.37

8.75

8.77

Senior administrative staff at the institution

5.59

6.42

10.50

9.83

16.22

17.37

Students

29.70

30.06

3.09

1.05

7.47

9.09

External reviewers

6.90

7.76

14.70

16.32

4.70

4.06

Self assessment

17.39

16.97

19.14

21.76

17.45

17.53

No one at or outside my institution

1.09

0.97

1.93

2.51

1.39

2.60

Total (%)

100

100

100

100

100

100

Total No of Respondents

2202

825

1714

478

1874

616

CHI-SQUARE p-value

0.78350.04300.2993* the figures indicate the percentage distribution in each column

Differences in Governance by Academic Disciplines
Changes in global and national context do not occur uniformly across all
sectors of society. In the Malaysian context, the changes in the economy froman agricultural base to a manufacturing one and more recently to a morehigh-tech knowledge-based economy produce different demands on the various
Faculties that are traditionally found in the university. This is reflected in thebias towards science and technology in the more recently set-up HEIs, be they
public or private. On this basis, comparisons in the governance in the HEIs as
viewed by members of HEIs of different disciplines warrant investigation.
Categorization of the different disciplines in the questionnaire had to beconsolidated to ensure a sufficient sample size in each category for meaningfulcomparisons. The discussion that ensues uses the following areas andcombinations: (1) Humanities is combined with Social and Behavioural Sciences,(2) Business with Law and Personal Services, (3) Life Sciences with Agriculture,(4) Engineering, (5) Medical Sciences, (6) Physical Sciences and (7) Education.
Tables 12 and 13 provide summaries for the comparative analysis of thethree issues of governance. In terms of location of decision-making power,
ANOVA analysis shows significant differences only for three decisions: thoserelated to choosing new faculty, determination of budget priorities and theestablishment of international linkages. The selection of new faculty is more
decentralized in the humanities and social sciences, compared to the otherfaculties; budget priorities and establishment of international linkages are more
decentralized in Medical and Life Sciences than the other faculties.

2.09
3.00
2.63
2.45
3.18
2.79
2.34
3.69
3.13
3.16
2.45
2.54
2.77
3.11

2.62
2.89
3.39
100
75

2.02
2.77
2.43
2.41
3.02
2.68
2.14
3.63
2.96
3.00
2.36
2.41
2.61
3.01

2.50
2.68
3.33
60
43

Choosing new faculty

Making faculty promotion and tenure decisions

Determining budget priorities

Determining the overall teaching load of faculty

Setting admission standards for undergraduates students

Approving new academic programs

Evaluating teaching

Setting internal research priorities

Evaluating research

Establishing international linkages

Location of Decision-making: Resource Decisions
Location of Decision-making: Teaching Related
Decisions
Location of Decision-making: Research and Linkage
Decisions
Extent of Academic Influence

Departmental Level

Faculty or School Level

Institutional Level

Maximum Sample Size

Minimum Sample Size

Humanities
Education
Soc. Sc.

Selecting key administrators

Location of Decision-Making PowerManagement Decisions

91

124

3.55

3.07

2.80

3.05

2.72

2.49

2.32

3.13

2.98

3.65

2.27

2.74

3.10

2.38

2.62

2.76

2.17

Business
& Law

49

58

3.22

2.88

2.54

3.23

2.92

2.47

2.72

3.22

3.11

3.89

2.61

2.88

3.32

2.61

2.46

2.84

1.95

Life Sc.
& Agri.

Mean Values

90

120

3.38

2.90

2.56

3.13

2.70

2.35

2.44

3.00

3.11

3.95

2.26

2.74

3.09

2.30

2.42

2.66

1.95

209

266

3.39

2.96

2.58

3.16

2.77

2.43

2.57

3.13

3.06

3.77

2.31

2.76

3.21

2.51

2.43

2.75

2.04

PhysicalEngineering
Sciences

Table 12. Location of Decision-Making Power

82

106

3.33

2.76

2.27

3.23

2.72

2.45

2.81

3.23

3.15

3.64

2.23

2.60

3.30

2.60

2.43

2.66

2.08

MedicalSciences

1.27

1.88

3.68

0.95

1.30

1.23

3.27

0.83

0.50

1.00

1.40

0.64

1.94

2.22

2.01

2.41

0.99

F-value

0.26750.08220.00130.45760.25400.28770.00350.54470.80550.42640.21330.69990.07110.0391

0.06170.02560.4306p-value219

219

Table 13a.

Evaluation Authority for Teaching (%)

Peers in department or unit
Head of department or unit
Members of other departments in the institution
Senior administrative staff at the institution
Students
External reviewers
Self-assessment
No one at or outside my institution
Total
CHI-SQUARE (p-value)

0.73

10.81
6.76
6.76
8.78
35.14
10.14
18.92
2.70
100

Education

Humanities
Soc. Sc.
13.39
7.09
7.09
7.48
32.68
10.24
20.87
1.18
100

Business
& Law
11.83
4.66
4.66
5.38
37.99
10.39
23.30
1.79
100

Evaluation Authority for Teaching
Percentage
Life Sc.
& Agri.
16.39
4.10
4.10
7.38
35.25
4.10
26.23
2.46
100

0.73

10.61
20.45
13.64
12.88
2.27
16.67
21.21
2.27
100

Education

Humanities
Soc. Sc.
12.50
21.76
11.57
11.57
4.17
16.20
21.76
0.46
100

Business
& Law
14.56
28.16
9.71
7.28
2.43
11.65
21.84
4.37
100

Percentage
Life Sc.
& Agri.
13.51
25.00
9.46
10.14
2.70
13.51
23.65
2.03
100

Table 13b. Evaluation Authority for Research

Evaluation Authority for Teaching (%)

Peers in department or unit
Head of department or unit
Members of other departments in the institution
Senior administrative staff at the institution
Students
External reviewers
Self-assessment
No one at or outside my institution
Total
CHI-SQUARE (p-value)

220

PhysicalSciences
11.52
22.30
11.90
11.52
2.97
17.47
19.70
2.60
100

PhysicalSciences
10.45
4.85
4.85
8.21
42.54
7.84
20.15
1.12
100

13.06
29.70
10.91
9.30
2.15
16.10
17.53
1.25
100

Engineering

10.73
6.13
6.13
7.16
38.50
9.20
20.95
1.19
100

Engineering

MedicalSciences
13.82
24.88
10.14
11.98
2.76
14.75
19.35
2.30
100

MedicalSciences
18.14
6.64
6.64
7.08
33.19
6.19
20.80
1.33
100

220

Peers in department or unit
Head of department or unit
Members of other departments in the institution
Senior administrative staff at the institution
Students
External reviewers
Self-assessment
No one at or outside my institution
Total
CHI-SQUARE (p-value)

Evaluation Authority for Service (%)

0.02

10.53
28.07
8.19
16.96
9.36
7.60
17.54
1.75
100

Education

Humanities
Soc. Sc.
11.42
27.56
9.06
19.29
8.66
5.12
16.93
1.97
100

Business
& Law
9.42
30.43
8.70
14.13
11.59
4.35
19.20
2.17
100

Table 13c. Evaluation Authority for Service
Percentage
Life Sc.
& Agri.
11.35
32.62
7.09
17.02
4.96
2.84
20.57
3.55
100
PhysicalSciences
11.82
31.76
8.11
16.89
8.11
5.41
16.55
1.35
100
6.81
38.53
9.32
15.77
8.06
2.51
17.74
1.25
100

Engineering

MedicalSciences
17.62
33.81
5.71
18.10
4.76
2.86
16.67
0.48
100

221

221

222

2.73
2.35
2.46
3.15
2.81
2.25
3.89
3.19
3.19
2.52
2.37
2.74
3.21

2.76
2.20
2.39
3.04
2.63
2.31
3.55
2.99
2.98
2.54
2.28
2.68
2.99

Choosing new faculty

Making faculty promotion and tenure decisions

Determining budget priorities

Determining the overall teaching load of faculty

Setting admission standards for undergraduates students

Approving new academic programs

Evaluating teaching

Setting internal research priorities

Evaluating research

Establishing international linkages

Location of Decision-making: Resource Decisions

Location of Decision-making: Teaching Related Decisions

Location of Decision-making: Research and Linkage Decisions

2.34
2.72
3.29
140
183

2.11
2.30
2.79
73
81

Departmental Level

Faculty or School Level

Institutional Level

Maximum Sample Size

Minimum Sample Size

Extent of Academic Influence

1.90

1.83

Professor

186

145

3.42

2.83

2.52

3.17

2.66

2.43

2.71

3.12

3.10

3.70

2.27

2.60

3.10

2.44

2.49

2.70

2.04

SeniorLecturer

Mean Values
Associate
Professor

Selecting key administrators

Location of Decision-Making PowerManagement Decisions

651

636

3.45

3.04

2.70

3.06

2.78

2.52

2.44

3.06

3.03

3.70

2.35

2.79

3.19

2.51

2.60

2.82

2.12

Lecturer

Table 14. Location of Decision-making Power by Academic Rank

17.62

20.02

17.86

3.03

1.38

6.19

3.70

1.50

1.91

1.51

0.50

2.28

1.11

0.70

11.02

0.97

5.61

F-value

0.00000.00000.00000.03240.15120.00010.00910.23860.17720.21050.63280.05100.23410.47160.00000.15330.0005P-value222

223
Table 15a.

Evaluation Authority for Teaching by Academic Rank

Evaluation Authority for Teaching
Peers in department or unit
Head of department or unit
Members of other departments in the institution
Senior administrative staff at the institution
Students
External reviewers
Self-assessment
No one at or outside my institution
Total
CHI-SQUARE (p-value)

Percentage of Respondents
Associate
SeniorLecturer
Professor
Professor
Lecturer
9.47
24.85
3.55
5.33
32.54
5.92
15.38
2.96
100
0.26

9.20
23.91
3.45
5.29
33.33
7.59
16.32
0.92
100

10.85
24.22
3.10
5.43
31.98
6.01
17.83
0.58
100

11.03
23.13
5.51
6.23
28.13
7.42
17.57
0.98
100

Table 15b. Evaluation Authority for Research by Academic Rank
Percentage of Respondents
Evaluation Authority for Research
Peers in department or unit
Head of department or unit
Members of other departments in the institution
Senior administrative staff at the institution
Students
External reviewers
Self-assessment
No one at or outside my institution
Total
CHI-SQUARE (p-value)

Professor
11.43
24.00
9.71
13.14
2.29
18.29
18.86
2.29
100
0.62

Associate
Professor

SeniorLecturer

Lecturer

11.67
28.61
11.11
10.28
2.50
16.67
18.06
1.11
100

14.29
24.73
12.09
9.34
3.85
14.84
20.33
0.55
100

13.15
25.49
12.03
9.79
2.39
14.42
20.18
2.54
100

Table 15c. Evaluation Authority for Service by Academic Rank
Percentage of Respondents
Evaluation Authority for Service
Peers in department or unit
Head of department or unit
Members of other departments in the institution
Senior administrative staff at the institution
Students
External reviewers
Self-assessment
No one at or outside my institution
Total
CHI-SQUARE (p-value)

Professor

Associate
Professor

SeniorLecturer

Lecturer

11.31
32.14
9.52
20.24
2.98
4.76
16.07
2.98
100

10.88
36.79
7.51
16.84
5.96
4.40
15.03
2.59
100

11.04
30.18
8.33
18.24
9.01
5.18
17.34
0.68
100

9.95
32.33
8.97
15.31
8.90
4.32
18.72
1.51
100

0.16

224
In terms of extent of influence, significant differences occur only at the
departmental level, not at Faculty or institutional levels, where the Medical
Sciences academics are relatively most influential, and business academics areleast influential.
In terms of who is empowered to evaluate the activities of faculty members,
significant differences arise across disciplines only for activities related toservice, not teaching or research. Three parties dominate the evaluation ofservices of academics, namely the head of department, senior administrative staffof the institution, and self-assessment. Even though the head of department
dominates the authority in evaluating the services of academics in all disciplines,
the second highest authority in evaluation of services of academics are the senioradministrative staff of the institution for those in Humanities and Social Sciences,
Physical Sciences and Medical Sciences, whereas for the other disciplines,
self-assessment provides the second highest authority.
Differences in Governance by Academic Ranks
Academic rank refers to the general hierarchy of an academic career,
namely lecturer, senior lecturer, associate professor and professor. It is highly
correlated to age and tenure (experience) of the individual. Differences inviews and perceptions of different cohorts may provide some indication of thechanges that have taken place in the academic environment. Further, given thatthe hierarchical nature of the Malaysian academic institutions does reflect a
differing scope of activities and responsibilities, this may or may not affectacademics’ views in relation to the governance and management of HEIs.
Tables 14 and 15 capture the findings of this comparative analysis, after
reclassification of assistant professors (a rank not commonly used in Malaysia)
as lecturers. Table 14 provides evidence to support the supposition that thelocation of decision-making powers for resource related decisions and researchand linkage decisions are perceived differently by academics of different ranks.
In both these decision areas, decisions related to resource allocations andresearch are seen to be more centralized by the professors, whereas junior ranked
academics viewed these decisions to be more decentralized at the top
management and the ministry level. This is probably due to the greater
involvement of professors at the management level of institutions. Not
surprisingly also, the level of influence of individual academics differs
significantly at all the levels of the organizational hierarchy, where professors
have greater influence than their junior-ranked colleagues.
In terms of location of the evaluation authority of teaching, research and225service activities of the academics, no significant differences can be discerned in
the views of academics of different academic ranks.

Conclusion
The four organisational cultures which are deeply embedded in thegovernance and decision-making processes of universities and HEIs are:bureaucratic, collegial, political, and organized anarchy. It is important to notethat each of these cultures has a unique and correspondingly different set ofassumptions about faculty-administrator and peer group relationships. Basedon the data set that is available, in so far as academic and academic-related
activities are concerned, while in theory faculty leaders in the sampled HEIs in
Malaysia actively seek to establish a more collegial and shared-decision making
model of faculty governance, in practice however, a clear pattern of where powerand decision-making authority lie becomes immediately evident. In otherwords, the more general tendency is that there are more instances of a ‘power
over’ culture than of a move towards ‘partnership power’. This ‘partnership
power’ should be an agenda for the future among the universities in Malaysia,
with the ultimate aim of facilitating a more democratic faculty governanceprocesses. In fact, the National Higher Education Strategic Plan 2007-2010
aspires to this aim.

References
Abdul Razak, A., Sarjit, K., & Morshidi, S. (2007). Restructuring of university governance. In
P. Kell, & G. Vogl (eds.), Higher Education in the Asia Pacific. Challenges for the
Future (pp. 61-83). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Baldridge, J.V. (1971). Power and Conflict in the University. New York: John Wiley.
Becher, T., & Kogan, M. (1992). Process and Structure in Higher Education. (2nd edn.)
London: Routledge.
Cohen, M.D., & March, J.G. (1974). Leadership and Ambiguity; The American College
President. New York: Mac Graw Hill Book Company.
Goodman, P. (1962). The Community of Scholars. New York: Random House.
Kogan, M. (2007). The academic profession and its interface with management. In M. Kogan,& U. Teichler (eds.), Key Challenges to the Academic Profession (pp. 159-174). Kassel:
International Centre for Higher Education Research Kassel.
Mignot-Gérard, S. (2002). Deconstructing leadership and governance systems within

226
universities. Proceedings of the Consortium of Higher Education Researchers, 15th
Annual Conference, 5-7 September 2002, Vienna, Austria.
Millett, J.D. (1962). The Academic Community. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1974). Organizational decision making as a political process.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 19(2), 165-151.
Weick, K.E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1-19.

227

A Preliminary Review of the Hong Kong CAP Data

Gerard A. Postiglione∗ and Hei Hang Hayes Tang**

This paper contains a preliminary look at the 2007 data from the Hong
Kong CAP study. It includes basic information about the sample andmethodology, as well as a review of selected data about the profile of academic
staff and their views about working conditions, management andinternationalism. The paper also makes reference to selected data gathered in
1993 and 1999. Finally, the paper provides a brief summary and some thoughts
about possible directions for future research on Hong Kong’s changing academic
profession.

Survey Methods
The Hong Kong CAP 2007 data were collected through a paper survey.
The questionnaire, consisting of 53 questions in 6 sections, was designed basedon the one developed by the international CAP team and modified by the Hong
Kong CAP team. The survey work was contracted to the Social Sciences
Research Centre (SSRC) of the University of Hong Kong. A pilot survey was
conducted in May 2007, after which selected questions were modified based on
the results of the pilot. Staff lists were acquired for each institution and a senioracademic at each institution was invited to become a Hong Kong CAP affiliate.
The role of the affiliate was to encourage academic staff at their institutions toparticipate in the survey. This was accomplished mainly by sending follow-up
reminders. The Hong Kong CAP principal investigator wrote an article for the∗Professor, Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China, e-mail:postiglione@hku.hk**
Ph.D. Candidate in Comparative Sociology of Higher Education, Faculty of Education,
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China, e-mail: hayestang@hku.hk

228
Hong Kong press preceding the launch of the survey which outlined the purposeof the CAP and the reasons why it was important for Hong Kong to participate.
Hong Kong academics were sent a survey package comprising a cover letterwith a two page explanation of the CAP survey, the survey questionnaire and astamped envelope addressed to the Social Science Research Centre (SSRC) for
returning the questionnaire. The survey packages were distributed in bulk toeach department/each institution, and academic staff received the survey via
their in-trays. A reminder card was sent after a ten-day period, and a second
reminder followed. Reminder e-mails were also sent by the institutional
affiliates.
During the period from May to August 2007, respondents returned theircompleted surveys to SSRC. A total of over 811 questionnaires were returned
via the post, institutional affiliates, and the project assistant. SSRC was also
responsible for data input and data cleaning. A data set and codebook weredelivered to the Hong Kong CAP team in January 2008.

Sample Representation
When compared with the actual profile of academic staff in Hong Kong, theHong Kong CAP sample indicates a relatively less bottom heavy structure interms of the profile of academic ranks. The University Grant Council (UGC)of the Hong Kong SAR Government keeps updated demographic profiles ofHong Kong higher education staff. The UGC 2006/07 figures show that nearly
three-fourths (73%) of Hong Kong academics were of assistant professor’s rank,equivalent or below, including teaching fellows, instructors, etc. However, as
Figure 1 indicates, the CAP 2007 sample has a larger representation of seniorscholars, with more than half (50.1%) being associate professors or professors(as compared with the actual distribution of 26.9%). This is because teaching
fellows/instructors are more likely employed on a part-time or temporary basis.
Only 4.5% of the HK CAP 2007 respondents were part-timers, whereas theactual proportion of part-time academics in the Hong Kong higher education
sector is 16.4% (UGC 2007). Regarding gender distribution, there is also aslight dispersion (32.7% women vs. 67.3% men in the HK CAP 2007 sample)
from the UGC distribution of 36% women and 64% men.
Theover-representation of women among the teaching fellows/instructors is one
possible explanation for this dispersion. Notwithstanding the above, it is thefull-time academics at the core of the faculty who are of primary interest in the
Hong Kong CAP analysis.

229

Chair Professor/
Professor/ Reader
13.2 13.7

UGC 06/07

20.7

CAP 2007

0%

20%

47.6

29.4

40%

60%

25.4

38.1

8.7

80%

100%

Associate Professor/
Senior Lecturer/ Principal
Lecturer
Assistant Professor/
Lecturer/ Research
Assistant Professor
Teaching Fellow/Instructor

Figure 1. The Shape of the CAP HK 2007 Sample

ProfileIn 2006-2007, the total number of faculty across the eight UCG-funded
institutions was 6,608. The Hong Kong sample survey constituted 6,291
faculty across academic ranks within all departments and similar academic unitsof the eight UGC-sponsored degree-granting institutions of higher education, aprivate university, the Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts and the Open
University of Hong Kong. There was a 12.9% response rate from the sample
surveyed.
One-third (34.2%) of the Hong Kong faculty respondents are tenured;
within that group, close to 60% (59.4%) are at what we refer to as type I
institutions, those that offer research postgraduate programs for a significant
number of students in selected subject areas; most type II institutions also offer
postgraduate degrees but not on the scale of the type I institutions. The average
number of years that faculty have been employed at both Type I and II
institutions is 9.3 years, the median is 8 years.
Between 648 and 670 (79.9% to 82.6%) of the respondents had doctorates;
this includes 82.1% to 84.8% of those from type I institutions and 77.6% to80.3% from type II institutions.1 Most faculty had earned their highest degrees
1
Despite the successful pilot survey, question one of the CAP survey apparently confusedsome Hong Kong academics and only a range rather than an exact figure on this question
could be acquired.

230
outside Hong Kong, with 66.8% to 67.7% and 73.5% to 74.3% of the
respondents having earned their first masters’ degrees and doctorates outside
Hong Kong, respectively. The highest percentage of doctorates were earned in
the United States (27.6% to 28.5%), followed by the United Kingdom (20.7% to21.5%).
Table 1. Region where Doctoral Degree Was Earned, 1993 and 2007 (%)
1993
2007
Hong Kong
10
25.7 to 26.5
United States
39
27.6 to 28.5
United Kingdom
27
20.7 to 21.5
Others24
23.5 to 26
(N)
(249)
(648 to 670)
Sources: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching,
The International Survey of the Academic Profession,
1991-1993 and CAP 2007 Survey of Hong Kong.

Despite the high proportion of doctorates earned outside the country, thefigures are a significant reduction from the 1993 survey which indicated close to
40% of Hong Kong academics had earned their doctorates in the United States.
Since that time, the capacity of Hong Kong’s type I universities to turn out
doctorates has increased. However, most of the Hong Kong academic staff who
originated in mainland China earned their doctorates in the United States andelsewhere.
Table 2. Doctorates and Ethnicities of Hong Kong Academics(%)

Place of Residence – At Birth
Doctorate Earned in
Mainland China
Hong Kong SAR
USA
40.4
21.0
Hong Kong SAR
21.3
36.1
Mainland China
12.4
0.8
United Kingdom
10.1
24.6
Australia
7.9
9.8
Canada4.5
4.6
Others3.4
3.0
Source: CAP 2007 Survey of Hong Kong.

The profile of academic ranks indicated a relatively bottom-heavy structure.
Within type I institutions, 24.2% of respondents are full professors/readers,
27.1% are associate professors/senior lecturers/principal lecturers, 36.4% areassistant professors/lecturers/research assistant professors, 7.7% are teaching231
fellows/teaching assistants or instructors. Within type II institutions, 17.1% of
respondents are full professors/readers, 31.6% are associate professors/seniorlecturers/principal lecturers, 39.8% are assistant professors/lecturers/research
assistant professors and 9.7% are teaching fellows/teaching assistants/instructors.

TypeⅠFaculty
TypeⅡFaculty

Professor/Reader

Associate Professor/
Senior/Principal
Lecturer

Teaching
Assistant Professor/
Fellow/Instructor
Lecturer/RAP

Figure 2. Academic Ranks and Types of Faculty

If all academics are divided into either science/technology or social
science/humanities, then 35.5% are in the former and 61.3% are in the lattergroupings. The average age of the faculty respondents is 46.4 years; the largest
group, 38.9%, are in their forties.
Faculty at both type of institutions are of similar ages. The proportion ofmen exceeds that of women by 67.3% to 32.7%. The proportion of womenfaculty has increased from 24.6% in 1993 to 28.6% in 1999 and 32.7% in 2007.
The feminization of Hong Kong academics also agrees with the global trend ofgreater gender equality within the intelligentsia. Within type I institutions,about three-fourths (72.8%) of the respondents are men, as compared to about
three-fifths (61.6%) of respondents at the other institutions. However, men are
more than four times as likely to be full professors.
Although Hong Kong faculty salaries are internationally competitive, morethan one-tenth of the respondents indicated that they had considered working
outside higher education within the last five years, and among them, about
one-fourth took some concrete action. Hong Kong’s economy provides
academics with opportunities to supplement their salaries, but faculty seldom
earn income from work outside their institutions. Only 8.9% reported that they

232
had concurrent employers and the mean of those second incomes was only
US$2,229 (HK$17,384). Hong Kong academics have experienced two or three
voluntary pay cuts since 2003 and several universities removed taxes on outsidepractice. During the period of economic difficulties, the government alsooffered matching funds for donations to universities.
Table 3. Gender, 1993, 1999 and 2007
1993

1999
24.6

Female

(%)
2007

28.6

32.7

75.4
71.4
67.3
Male
Sources: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching,
The International Survey of the Academic Profession,
1991-1993, Hong Kong Academic Staff Profession Surveyof 1999 and CAP 2007 Survey of Hong Kong.

Table 4. Gender and Types of Faculty, 2007 (%)
Type I Faculty

Type II Faculty

Female

27.2

38.4

Male

72.8

61.6

Source: CAP 2007 Survey of Hong Kong

75.4

80

71.4

70

67.3

60

Female

50

Male

40
30
20

24.6

28.6

32.7

10

Male

0
1993

1999

Female2007

Figure 3. Gender of HK CAP Sample, 1993, 1999, 2007

233

TypeⅠFaculty

TypeⅡ Faculty

Figure 4. Gender and Types of Faculty

Working Conditions
Hong Kong academic staff report relatively high workloads in teaching,research, administration and service activities. The average working hours per
week are 52 when classes are in session and 50.2 when classes are not in session.
When classes are in session, an average of 19.9 hours is allocated to teachingand 16 hours to research. When classes are not in session, time spent for
research takes a greater proportion (25.7 hours) than teaching (7.6 hours).
There are only very slight differences in hours spent on administration andservices whether classes are in session or not (8.5 hours on administration during
school term and 8.6 hours per week during term break). Faculty, spend
somewhat more hours on services (4.4 hours) than they do when classes are insession. They allocate 4 hours for services when they need to teach during
school term.
Hong Kong’s tertiary institutions are thought to be well endowed withresources to support professional practice in teaching and research. Faculty
members gave high ratings to the physical resources supporting their work −including classrooms, laboratories, and research equipment.
They areespecially satisfied with the computer and library facilities. A high proportion(82.4%) of the respondents evaluated the library facilities and services as either
very good or excellent. Relatively high ratings (very good and excellent) werealso given for telecommunications (79.5%), computer facilities (75.3%) andtechnology for teaching (71.8%). These figures are lower than those indicated234
by academic staff in the first international survey.
Attitudes toward social working conditions are in contrast to thoseconcerning physical resources. For instance, 47.2% of the surveyed faculty
thought they were given excellent or very good secretarial support, whereas only
29.3% evaluated their research support staff as excellent or very good. Most
faculty also felt they were not well-supported financially for research − with
one-fourth of faculty (29.7%) indicating that they received very good or
excellent research funding.
Regarding the relationship between faculty and administration, only 25.3%
strongly agreed or agreed that there was good communication between
management and academic staff. The largest group (31.6%) showed a neutral
response rate but 21.7% of faculty disagreed and 21.4% strongly disagreed thatthey enjoyed good communication with the management of their institutions.
Faculty at type II institutions showed a slightly higher satisfaction with thiscommunication: there are 27.4% of the respondents from type II institutions whostrongly agreed or agreed that their communication with the management wasgood, whereas the figure for type I institutions was 23.2%.
Hong Kong academics are more committed to their discipline/field than totheir department and more to their departments than to their institutions.
Almost all (90.1%) indicated that their discipline/field was very important orimportant to them. Nearly three-fourths (72.3%) showed their commitment totheir department/division as important or very important, whereas 59.8%
described the same commitment to their institutions. The above cases areespecially true for type I faculty.

Faculty Mobility
Within the last five years, 24.3% of the respondents considered changing toan academic position in another higher education institution within Hong Kong,
with 13.2% taking concrete action for the idea. Only 4.1% have changed to a
management position in the last five years, with further 5.1% indicating that they
have considered such a change. On being asked whether they considered a jobchange to an academic position outside Hong Kong, 23.7% indicated a positive
response whereas 8.4% took action to do so in the previous five years.

49.8

52.3

54.9

52.9

Total
1993
2007
48.1
50.3

55.2

54.8

50.3

53.2

Total
1993
2007
50.3
52

21.3

19.6

15

5.2

4.9

Teaching
1993
2007
7.8
7.7

18.6

16.8

10.5

Teaching
1993
2007
19
19.9

16.4

17.7

17.7

18.6

26.3

Research
1993
2007
22
25.7

14.5

14.7

14.6

Research
1993
2007
13.6
16

3.6

4.2

4.4

6.6

4.3

Service
1993
2007
5.4
4.4

7

4.9

5.7

Service
1993
2007
5.3
4

5.7

9.8

12.9

18.1

12.7

Administration
1993
2007
8.4
8.6

8.4

10

17.1

Administration
1993
2007
8.6
8.5

2.8

3.9

4.8

6.4

4.7

Other
1993
2007
4.5
3.9

3.8

3.9

5.3

Other
1993
2007
3.8
3.6

(hours)

Associate Professor/
49.8
53.7
6.3
7.6
23.1
27.0
6
4.6
9.7
10.1
4.7
4.4
Senior Lecturer/
Principal Lecturer
Assistant Professor/
49.1
45.5
7.4
7.5
23.8
27.6
5.6
4.3
7.9
5.8
4.4
3
Lecturer/Research
Assistant Professor
Sources: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, International Survey of the Academic Profession, 1991-1993 and CAP 2007
Survey of Hong Kong.

Professor/Reader

All Faculty

Classes Not in Session

Associate Professor/
Senior Lecturer/
Principal Lecturer
Assistant Professor/
Lecturer/Research
Assistant Professor

Professor/Reader

All Faculty

Classes in Session

Table 5. Hours per Week on Professional Activities, 1993 and 2007

235

235

Teaching

2007

Other

Administration

Service2007

Research

236

1993

1993
2007

Class Not In Session
Class In Session

1993
2007
1993
2007
1993
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Figure 5. Hours per Week on Professional Activities, 1993 and 2007

(hours)Table 6. Faculty Attitudes toward Working Conditions, 2007(%)

Excellent
Classroom
18.6
Libraries Facilities
36
and Services
Laboratories
12.4
Research Equipment
9.9
and Instruments
Computer Facilities
23.3
Telecommunications
31.7
Technology for
22.4
Teaching
Teaching Support
8.3
Staff
Research Support
5.9
Staff
Research Funding
6.1
Secretarial Support
15.9
Office Space
18.6
Source: CAP 2007 Survey of Hong Kong.

49.2

23.2

Quite
Poor
6.6

46.4

12.4

4.5

0.8

37.2

34.9

11.7

3.9

42.2

31.6

11.9

4.4

52
47.8

17.8
16.3

5.7
3.8

1.1
0.4

49.4

22.7

4.4

1.2

27.3

32.2

19.2

13

23.4

34.6

22

14.1

23.6
31.3
40.2

35.7
24.8
22.5

19
16.4
9.8

15.6
11.6
9

Good

Fair

Poor
2.4

237

Teaching and Research
The majority of the Hong Kong academics teach. Ninety-two percent ofrespondents indicated that they were involved in the teaching of undergraduate
and/or graduate level courses. Type II faculty (94.8%) tended to do moreteaching than their counterparts at type I institutions (89.2%). Responding toquestions on whether research activities and service activities reinforce teaching,
72.6% strongly agreed or agreed that research activities reinforced their teaching
but a lesser proportion (43.9%) showed the same extent of agreement that
service activities reinforce their teaching. More type I faculty (79.3%) thantype II faculty (71.3%) agreed that their teaching was reinforced by research
activities, whereas more type II faculty (47.5%) than their colleagues at type I
institutions (39.8%) agreed that service work reinforced their teaching.
A high percentage of respondents reported that quantitative load targets or
regulatory expectations were set on their teaching: number of hours in theclassroom (72.6%); number of students in their classes (43.9%); time for student
consultation (33.5%); number of graduate students for supervision (27.6%);
percentage of students passing exams (14.1%).
In terms of teachingevaluations, these were carried out by various stakeholders: students (87.8%);
department head (67.7%); self (formal self-assessment) (43.9%); peers in theirdepartment or unit (36.4%); senior administrative staff (29.6%); external
reviewers (23.2%); members of other departments/units at their institution(9.6%).
On being asked whether they spent more time than they would like teachingbasic skills due to student deficiencies, 55.3% of Hong Kong academics agreed
or strongly agreed with the statement. Type II teaching staff tended to agree
more in this regard (62.6% agreed or strongly agreed) than their colleagues attype I universities (47.7%).
When asked to declare if their interests lay primarily in teaching or research,or both, nearly eighty percent (79.4%) of the Hong Kong academic profession
indicated both teaching and research. More than half (51.8%) lean toward
research, whereas only 27.6% lean toward teaching. There is another 11.3%
who indicated they have a primary interest in research only.
Faculty at type I institutions express a greater interest in doing research thanfaculty at type II institutions. A majority (56.4%) of type I faculty indicatedtheir interests lean toward research while 47.1% of type II faculty also indicated
so. Academics at type II institutions showed comparatively greater interests inteaching. About one-third (35.4%) of type II academics were interested in238teaching and research, but lean towards teaching − yet only 19.8% of type I
faculty indicated likewise. About one in ten academic members (10.4%) at
type II institutions were primarily interested in teaching whereas 15.5% of type I
faculty are primarily interested in research.
Table 7. Faculty Assessment on the Influences of Research and Services on
Teaching, 1993 and 2007(%)
Strongly
Agree1993 2007
Research
Activities/Commitments
Reinforce Teaching
Service/ Nonacademic
Professional Activities
Reinforce Teaching

1993

2007

1993

2007

1993

2007

Strongly
Disagree1993 2007

Agree

NeutralDisagree

17

29.5

27.7

43.1

34

17.7

14.9

6.3

6.4

3.5

5.1

14.5

13.9

29.4

62

28.4

13.9

17.3

5.1

10.4

Type
I

Type
II

Type
I

Type
II

Type
I

Type
II

Type
I

Type
II

43.6

42.6

16.4

18.9

6.4

6.2

3.3

3.6

25.1

33.2

28

28.8

20.1

14.8

12.1

8.8

Type I and Type II Institutions, 2007
Type TypeI
II
Research
30.3
28.7
Activities/Commitments
Reinforce Teaching
Service/ Nonacademic
Professional Activities
14.7
14.3
Reinforce Teaching

Sources: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, International Survey ofthe Academic Profession, 1991-1993 and CAP 2007 Survey of Hong Kong.

43.1

45
40

29.5

35
30

34
27.7

25
20

17.7

17

15

14.9
6.3

10
5

1993
6.4

3.5

2007

0
Strongly Agree

Agree

NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

Figure 6. Research Activities/Commitments Reinforce Teaching (%)

239
The type and amount of research activities have increased rapidly in recent
years. During the past two years, 78.7% of our respondents showed that theywrote academic papers that contain research results or findings; 62.8% answered
calls for proposals or writing for research grants; 52.8% supervised a researchteam or graduate research assistants.
The averaged number of scholarly books authored or co-authored, during
the period of 2005-2007 is 0.86; scholarly books edited or co-edited is 0.82;
whereas for articles published in an academic book or journal, the average was
10.1. Type 1 faculty published more academic articles (11.8 on average) thantype II faculty (8.3) but type II faculty had slightly better output of books (0.89).
Hong Kong academics also presented papers at scholarly conferences (8.11),
wrote professional articles for newspapers or magazines (4.02), wrote research
reports/monographs for funded projects (2.57). Faculty at type II institutions
wrote more computer programs for public use (0.33 vis-à-vis 0.09 by type I
faculty), and performed or exhibited more artistic work (0.98 vis-à-vis 0.25 bytype I faculty). Academics at type I institutions secured an average of 0.58
patents on a process or invention in the past two years, while type II faculty had
an average of 0.29. Video or films were also produced by Hong Kong facultywith an average production of 0.39 by type II faculty and 0.2 by type I.
More than 80% of the Hong Kong academics worked on research projects,
in which collaborative projects (84.1% of the respondents took part) werepreferred to individual projects (50.5%). Type I faculty worked more on
collaborative projects (85.9%) than their colleagues at type II institutions(82.3%); whereas type II faculty were more involved in individual researches(52.5% vis-à-vis 48.6% by type I faculty). Collaborations were carried out withpartners at other Hong Kong higher education institutions or institutions outside
Hong Kong. Most (55.6%) of the respondents indicated that they had researchcollaborators at other Hong Kong higher education institutions; 44.9%
collaborated with persons in other parts of China, while 61.4% had researchcollaboration with colleagues overseas.
Concerning research funding, 50.6% of the respondents indicated that theirfunding came from their own institution and 23.1% indicated it came frompublic research funding agencies. There is a large dispersion in the sources thatfund the research by type I faculty and type II faculty. About 41.7% of faculty
members at type I institutions indicated that their funding came from their own
institutions while 60.7% of type II faculty so indicated. Public researchfunding agencies (for example the Research Grant Council of Hong Kong)
funded 32.1% of type I faculty member’s projects but only 13% of type II240academics’ research fund came from public research funding agencies. Nearly
one in five (18.7%) of the Hong Kong faculty’s research projects were funded bygovernment entities, 3.3% by private not-for-profit foundations/agencies, and2.3% by business firms or industry. Of the research funding about 90% wasfrom Hong Kong – only 7.6% from international organizations/entities and 3.2%
from entitles in other parts of China. About 10% of the respondents revealed
that they received no funding for research projects.

Management
Decision-making power is centralized mostly at the level of academic units(deans, departmental heads). Almost two-thirds (62.6%) of Hong Kong
academics indicated that academic unit managers have the primary influence on
determining the overall teaching load of faculty. Deans/department heads arealso the most influential actors in a number of decisions: on choosing new
faculty (as indicated by 49.6% of the respondents), on determining budget
priorities (43.1%), on making future faculty promotion and tenure decisions(42.6%), on evaluating research (40.2%), on setting internal research priorities(39.3%), and on evaluating teaching (36.3%). Institutional managers wereconsidered by 46.9% and 31.3% of the respondents as having primary influenceon key administrator selection and establishing international linkages,
respectively. Elsewhere, decision-making power was centralized at Facultycommittees/boards for setting admission standards for undergraduate students (asshown by 34.4% of Hong Kong faculty) and at university senate for approving
new academic programs, according to the views shown by 29.5% of the
respondents.
Where personal influence on shaping key academic policies was concerned,
Hong Kong faculty perceived that it diminished as it proceeds up theinstitutional hierarchy. Hong Kong academics (40.7%) stated that they were
either very influential or somewhat influential at departmental level, yet thefigure dropped to 18.7% and further to 6.9%, respectively when personal
influence at school/Faculty level and institutional level was concerned.
Interestingly, a larger proportion of type I faculty perceived greater personal
influence at departmental level than type II faculty (42.4% as compared with39.1%); but a higher percentage of type II academics considered themselves very
influential or somewhat influential on shaping key academic policies atschool/Faculty level (19.5% as compared with 17.8% of type I faculty) and at
institutional level (8.8% vis-à-vis 4.9%).

241
Table 8. Faculty Influence at the Departmental Level in Helping to ShapeKey Academic Policies, 1993, 1999 and 2007(%)

All Faculty
Type I
Institutions
Type II
Institutions

Very
Influential
1993 1999 2007

Somewhat
Influential
1993 1999 2007

A Little
Influential
1993 1999 2007

Not At All
Influential
1993 1999 2007

Not
Applicable1993 1999 2007

13

13.1

14.2

34

26.2

26.5

28

34.6

31

23

25.7

22.1

2

0.5

6.2

16

11.4

15.8

41

22.9

26.6

24

34.3

29.5

16

30.5

20.9

3

1.0

7.2

10

15.1

12.7

28

30.2

26.4

31

34.9

32.6

29

19.8

23.3

2

0

5.2

Sources: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, International Survey ofthe Academic Profession, 1991-1993, Hong Kong Academic Staff Profession Surveyof 1999 and CAP 2007 Survey of Hong Kong.

Academic Freedom
Hong Kong academics were asked to indicate how much they agreed withthe statement. “The administration supports academic freedom”. One-sixth(16.0%) strongly agreed with the given statement, 37.8% agreed and 31.0%
indicated a neutral stance. In comparison with the figure of 48.7% for type IIcolleagues, type I academics indicated a more positive view toward the issue;
58.9% of them either strongly agreed or agreed that the administration supported
academic freedom.
Table 9.

The Administration Supports Academic Freedom, 1993 and 2007 (%)

All Faculty

Agree
1993
2007
49.5
53.8

Neutral
1993
1993
27.3
31

Disagree
2007
1993
23.2
15.1

Type I Faculty

65.7

23.2

12.1

58.9

29.7

11.2

Type II Faculty
34.7
48.7
30.6
32.3
34.7
18.9
Sources: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching,International Survey of the Academic Profession, 1991-1993
and CAP 2007 Survey of Hong Kong.

Internationalism
Hong Kong’s academic profession has one of the most internationalized
profiles in the world (THES, 2007). Therefore, external factors are highly
significant. These include the academic characteristics of the other national
systems that exert a strong influence on it, especially the United States, wheremost earned their highest degree, the United Kingdom, which was the colonial
power up to 10 years ago, and China, which is not only influencing the priorities
of higher education, but also is an increasing source of recruitment of academics

242
into the profession. Hong Kong academics have either one of or the lowest
proportion of within-system doctorates, though this number is increasing withquestionable consequences, including a slight upturn in in-breeding.
Faculty from both types I&II institutions share similar views on increasing
internationalism at their institutions. More than half (54%) of Hong Kong
faculty strongly agreed or agreed that the number of international students had
increased since they started teaching. Slightly more type II faculty (54.7%)
than type I faculty (53.2%) identified the increasing number of international
students in their institutions. Of type I faculty, 17.0 % agreed that most of thegraduate students at their institutions are international students, while 10.2% oftype II faculty agreed so. The combined figure is 13.5%. In the academic
years 2005/2006 or 2006/2007, 10.9% of Hong Kong academics were teachingcourse(s) abroad and 13.8% in a language different from the language of
instruction they use at their current institution.
Increasing internationalism in research has been the case in recent years.
Over three-fourths of the Hong Kong CAP 2007 respondents claim that theirprimary research can be characterized as international in scope or orientation.
The situation can be reflected by the nature of their research outputs. In the last
three years, more than one in five (22.5%) of type I academics’ publications
were co-authored with overseas colleagues (outside of Hong Kong but notincluding Mainland China) while 19.8% of type II faculty’s publications weresimilarly co-authored. Hong Kong academics also wrote with colleagues
located in other parts of China. Type II academics had more frequentco-authorship with authors from other parts of China (11.9% of their
publications) than type I academics (10.9%). Most of the works of Hong Kong
academics were published internationally (overseas, but not including Mainland
China): 78.6% of publications by type I faculty and 77% of type II faculty's were
published in other countries. Some of their publications were published inother parts of China as well (type I faculty: 6.9%; type II faculty: 8.3%).
Table 10. Internationalism in research: How would you characterize theemphasis of your primary research as international in scope ororientation during the past two years?
1 - Very much2
3
4
5 - Not At All
Source: CAP 2007 Survey of Hong Kong.

Percentage
30.1
35.0
18.7
8.1
8.1

243
Table 11. Nature of Publications

Co-authored with overseas colleagues
Co-authored with colleagues located inother parts of China
Published internationally
Published in other parts of China
Source: CAP 2007 Survey of Hong Kong.

Proportion of the Total Publications(Percentage)
Type I Faculty
Type II Faculty
22.5
19.8
10.9
11.9
78.6
6.9

77.0
8.3

Providing internationalism in teaching and research, English has been the
primary lingua franca in Hong Kong academe. More than 80% of the Hong
Kong faculty used English as the medium of instruction for their teachingwhereas English was employed as the primary language by even more (88.8%)of the researchers in Hong Kong.
Table 12. Primary Language Employed in Teaching and Research (%)
Teaching
EnglishChineseGermanJapanese
Source: CAP 2007 Survey of Hong Kong.

Research
82.0
23.0
0.1
0.0

88.8
14.9
0.5
0.5

Relevance
One of the most visible trends affecting the academic profession has been
the demand for relevance. Hong Kong’s small size, pragmatic traditions inbusiness and commerce, and stiff dependency on international economic trends,
ensure that relevance embeds itself in the guiding discourse of social institutions.
In higher education, some factors also work against relevance, including: (a) the
many decades when universities were relatively insulated from society; (b) the
bloated public sector of higher education in which the laissez faire economic
philosophy has only produced one private university, and for most universities,
the lack of large numbers of alumni who anchor universities to a wider
assortment of public concerns.
One of the more prominent international trends that have affected theacademic profession has been the call for universities to become more relevant.
This has made itself felt across all dimensions of scholarship and one of the most244
visible manifestations has been in the weakening of traditional disciplinary
boundaries. More than two-thirds (67.3%) of academic staff characterize theirresearch as multi- or inter-disciplinary.
This corresponds closely with how scholars view their university’semphasis on multi- or inter-disciplinary research. Most (61.5%) of the Hong
Kong faculty agreed that their institutions emphasized interdisciplinary research.
Despite the diverse backgrounds of academic staff, there seems to be little
resistance to university efforts to open boundaries across fields. The fact thatdisciplinary-based academic associations in Hong Kong are small and lessinfluential may contribute to this.
Table 13a. Would you characterize the emphasis of your primary research as
multi- or inter-disciplinary during the past two years?
1 – Very much2
3
4
5 - Not at all
Source: CAP 2007 Survey of Hong Kong.

Percentage
32.2
35.1
14.3
11.4
7.0

Table 13b. Inter-disciplinary research is emphasized at my institution
1 - Strongly agree
23
4
5 - Strongly disagree
Source: CAP 2007 Survey of Hong Kong.

Percentage
22.2
39.3
26.9
7.6
4.0

Table 14a. How would you characterize the emphasis of your primary researchduring the past two years?
(%)
Applied or practically-oriented
1 – Very much2
3
4
5 - Not at all
Source: CAP 2007 Survey of Hong Kong.

29.0
42.7
14.8
7.6
5.8

Socially-oriented or intended forbetterment of society
19.0
30.5
20.6
15.2
14.7

245
A large majority (71.7%) of the Hong Kong researchers characterized theirprimary research as much or very much applied or practically-oriented, while
half (49.5%) saw it as socially-oriented or intended for the betterment of society.
Similarly 68.4% of the Hong Kong academics agreed that their teachingemphasized practically-oriented knowledge and skills. While there is a clear
shift in support towards more practical and social oriented research and anemphasis on transmitting practical knowledge and skills in teaching, theuniversities’ efforts to commercialize have been less influential on scholarlywork.
A smaller proportion of the respondents (34.5%) agreed thatcommercially-oriented or applied research was emphasized by their institutions.
Table 14b. Teaching in your institution emphasises practically-oriented
knowledge
1 - Strongly agree
23
4
5 - Strongly disagree
Source: CAP 2007 Survey of Hong Kong.

Percentage
23.5
44.9
21.2
9.4
1.1

Table 14c. Your institution emphasizes commercially-oriented or appliedresearch
1 - Strongly agree
23
4
5 - Strongly disagree
Source: CAP 2007 Survey of Hong Kong.

Percentage
10.4
24.5
36.8
18.0
10.3

Table 14d. Would you characterize the emphasis of your primary research ascommercially-oriented or intended for technology transfer during
the past two years?
1 – Very much2
3
4
5 - Not at all
Source: CAP 2007 Survey of Hong Kong.

Percentage
1.8
9.0
15.5
18.2
55.6

246
The reasons may not be easy to identify without further research.
However, the elevated position of business and commerce among otherinstitutions in a society such as Hong Kong’s could mean that the academe ishardly able to reach the expected standard. Moreover, part of the academic
community views it as part of its role to ensure that, while universities can be
run more like business and commercial enterprises, they should not be part ofthat sector.
Table 14e. To what extent does your institution consider the practicalrelevance or applicability of the work of colleagues when
making personnel decisions(%)
1 – Very much2
3
4
5 - Not at all
Source: CAP 2007 Survey of Hong Kong.

Percentage
4.5
20.3
46.0
19.6
9.7

Table 14f. To what extent does your institution emphasize recruiting
faculty who have work experience outside academia? (%)
1 – Very much2
3
4
5 - Not at all
Source: CAP 2007 Survey of Hong Kong.

Percentage
3.3
17.6
37.1
28.5
13.6

Table 14g. The pressure to raise external research funds has increased
since my first appointment(%)
1 - Strongly agree
23
4
5 - Strongly disagree
Source: CAP 2007 Survey of Hong Kong.

Percentage
44.4
33.7
14.7
4.7
2.6

Given the demand for relevance, Hong Kong faculty not only have theirresearch funded by their own institutions. They also raise research funds fromoutside academe. Institutional financial support constitutes half of their247
funding sources, whereas government and public research funding agencies
support another forty percent. Academics also seek funds from non-profit
making foundations (3.3%) as well as business firms (2.4%). The changing
academic profession indicated that there had been an increasing pressure to raise
research funds outside their institutions. Nearly 80% of the respondents agreed
that the pressure to raise external funds for research has increased since their first
appointment. It is expected that the proportion of institutional financial support
for research will continue to diminish in the future.
Table 14h. During the current academic year, have you done any of thefollowing?
Percentage
Been a member of a community organization or participated incommunity-based projects

36.8

Worked with local, national or international social service agencies

21.4

Been substantially involved in local, national or international
politics

6.1

Served as an elected officer or leader of unions

5.3

Source: CAP 2007 Survey of Hong Kong

Higher education institutes, like other modern organizations, are reaching
beyond the ivory tower to build networks and create business opportunities forrevenue expansion (Cummings, 2006). To work in line with the mission of a
relevant academy, Hong Kong scholars are involved in activities, organizations
and commitments outside academe. During the academic year 2006-07, 36.8%
were members of community organizations or participated in community-based
projects and 21.4% worked with local, national or international social service
agencies. Only 6.1% had substantial involvement in local, national orinternational politics and only 5.3% indicated that they served as an elected
officer or leader of a union.

Concluding Remarks
We would have expected a greater difference in response patterns ofacademics in Hong Kong since the surveys of 1993 and 1999. However, many
response patterns have been sustained in a number of areas, despite the fact that
economic globalization has moved most university systems in a new, more
entrepreneurial direction (Postiglione, 2008; UNESCO, 2004; Berger, 1991,

248
pp.24-27; Wong, 1988). The Hong Kong academic profession has been
responsive and adaptive, and not unexpectedly, academic entrepreneurialism(Clark, 2002; Mok, 2005) is on the rise.
Given the preliminary nature of this review, it may be premature to set out
the directions for more in depth analysis. Yet, the following directions may
show promise: the impact of academic entrepreneurialism on professional
autonomy, the extent to which an academic career is still able to attract the mosttalented of the younger generation, the feminization of academic profession,
doctoral localization, and the effect of internationalization on the mobility of theacademic profession across national and regional borders.

Acknowledgement
The author acknowledges support from the Research Grants Council ofHong Kong, HKU 7456/05H.

References
Berger, B. (ed.) (1991). The Culture of Entrepreneurship. San Francisco: ICS Press.
Clark, B.R. (2002). Entrepreneurial Universities. Occasional Paper Series No.1. Hong Kong:
Comparative Education Policy Research Unit, City University of Hong Kong.
Cummings, W.K. (2006). The Third Revolution of Higher Education: Becoming More
Relevant. In Research Institute for Higher Education (RIHE) (ed.), Reports of Changing
Academic Profession Project Workshop on Quality, Relevance, and Governance in the
Changing Academia: International Perspectives. Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima
University.
Mok, K.H. (2005). Fostering Entrepreneurship: Changing Role of Government and Higher
Education Governance in Hong Kong. Research Policy, 34 (2005), 537-554.
Postiglione, G.A. (2007). Hong Kong: Expansion, Re-Union with China and theTransformation of Academic Culture. In W. Locke, & U. Teichler (eds.), The Changing
Conditions for Academic Work and Careers in Select Countries. Kassel: International
Centre for Higher Education Research at the University of Kassel.
Postiglione, G.A. (2008). Questioning Core-Periphery Platforms. In D. Chapman, W.K.
Cummings, and G.A. Postiglione (eds.), Border Crossing in East Asian Higher
Education. Hong Kong: Springer Press & the Comparative Education Research Centreof the University of Hong Kong (in press).
Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) (2007). World University Rankings. November 9,

249
2007.
UNESCO (2004). Higher Education in Asia and the Pacific. [CD ROM] Bangkok: UNESCO.
University Grant Council, Hong Kong SAR Government (2007). Departmental Staff Number(Full-time Equivalent) of UGC-funded Institutions by Source of Salary Funding, Staff
Grade, Mode of Employment and Institution, 2006/07. Accessed on April 14, 2008, fromhttp://www.ugc.edu.hk/eng/doc/ugc/stat/staff1.pdf
Wong, S.L. (1988). Emigrant Entrepreneurs: Shanghai Industrialists in Hong Kong. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Yang, R. (2006). Transnational Higher Education in Hong Kong: An Analysis. In F. Huang(ed.), Transnational Higher Education in Asian and Pacific Region. Hiroshima: RIHE,
Hiroshima University.

251

Progress of the Academic Profession in Mainland
China

Hong Shen∗†Introduction
China is a large country. It has a population in excess of 1.3 billion. Its
higher education system reflects the same scale. There are over 23 million
students attending courses in mainland China; and more than 18 million
attending “regular” courses. Providing these courses are 1,876 regular higher
education institutions (RHEIs). Of these, 720 RHEIs provide 4-year full-timedegree level courses: 691 are public institutions, and 29 private. The public
institutions are affiliated either to central government (105) or to local
government.
The total number of faculty in the 1,876 RHEIs is in excess of one million,
1,075,989. Those in the 720 institutions that provide 4-year full-time degreelevel courses number 677,056. It is these faculty members who constitute theacademic profession in mainland China for the purposes of the CAP survey.
The CAP national survey used the agreed common questionnaire. Itsapplication involved challenges from the scale – both numerical andgeographical. The arrangements for the selection of a sample population, for
distribution of the questionnaire and the processing of responses are discussed in
Section 1. A preliminary discussion of the statistics from the responses isprovided in the subsequent sections. The discussion is selective: it focuses∗

Professor, Graduate School of Education, Huazhong University of Science and Technology,
China†
Professor Shen was unable to prepare a written text. This article was prepared by the editor
from the material presented by Professor Shen to the CAP meeting in Hiroshima in January,
2008. Errors, misjudgments and misconceptions that may have arisen in this process are
entirely the responsibility of the editor.

252
mainly on the progress achieved by the academic profession in China and on thecurrent levels of satisfaction that are expressed. The paper ends with a brief
statement of some initial conclusions.

Section 1. Structure, Distribution and Response of the Sample
Population
Sample Structure
The size and distributions of the academic profession in mainland China
impose clear requirements for a balanced selection of the survey sample. The
numbers are large and distributed unevenly; the geographical environments arediverse. To render the process of selecting a representative sample of suitablesize manageable, a number of operating principles were established. These
were applied to sample selection at the level of both institutions and members offaculty.
Institutions
Guidelines for the CAP project identify 4-year degree-awarding institutions
as a basis for the survey. Accordingly, it was decided to exclude the short-cycle
and private colleges and that the survey population would be drawn from the 691
public RHEIs. These institutions are affiliated with either local government(586), spread over 31 provinces, or national government (105), located in 10
provinces. The uneven provincial distribution suggested that, as a matter ofprinciple, it would be appropriate to use the six administrative regions as
sampling units. In order to constrain the survey to a practicable size, a further
decision was to limit the sample to 1 in 10 of the 4-year institutions and apply
this separately to the two categories. By combining these principles, theinstitutional samples were identified as 10 national and 60 regional institutions asshown in Table 1.
Faculty
To obtain representative samples from the institutions it is similarly
necessary to identify principles for operation. Academic and disciplinary
diversity were accommodated by limiting the sample size from each institution to60, and by ensuring that each of the institutions selected for survey had faculty in
not less than 5 disciplines. Arrangements to be made within institutions were253
identified as the means by which a representative distribution of academic rank,
age and gender could be obtained.1
Table 1. Selection of Institutions to provide Samples for CAP Survey(a) National Institutions
RegionNational system

Sampling

North China

41: Beijing (34); Tianjin (3); Hebei (4)4East-north China

10: Liaonin (5); Jilin (2); Helongjiang (3)1East China

24: Shanghai (8); Jiangsu (9); Zhejiang (1);2

(number of national institutions)

Anhui (2); Fujiang (2); Shandong (2)Central-south China

13: Hubei (8); Hunan (2); Guangdong (3)1West-south China

8: Chongqing (2); Shichuan (6)1West-north China

9: Shanxi (6); Ganshu (2); Xingxia (1)1

6 regions

105 national institutions in 20 provinces

10(b) Provincial Institutions
RegionProvincial systems

Sampling(number of local institutions)North China

90: Beijing (23); Tianjin (15); Hebei (26);9Shanxi (16); Inner-Mongolia (10)East-north China
East China

76: Liaonin (34); Jilin (21); Helongjiang (21)8168: Shanghai (20); Jiangsu (33); Zhejiang (24);17

Anhui(24); Fujiang (14); Jiangxi (18); Shandong (35)Central-south China

128: Henan (27); Hubei (24); Hunan (22);13

Guangdong (31); Guangxi (19); Hainan (5)West-south China

70: Chongqing (13); Shichuan (24); Guizhou (14);7

Yunnan (16); Tibet (3)West-north China

54: Shanxi (26); Ganshu (11); Qinghai (3);6

Xingxia (3); Xingjiang (11)
6 regions586 local institutions in 31 provinces

60

Responses
The survey extended to 60 members of faculty in each of 70 institutions
1

With hindsight, it would have been useful to have also sought explicit information about thenationality of faculty.

254
distributed in 11 of the 31 provinces. Support for the survey, provided byintervention from the Central Ministry of Education following representations
from the Chinese CAP team, yielded an exceptionally high response rate.
Responses were received, by October 2007 from 68 of the 70 institutions (97%)
and individually from 3,618 faculty (86%). The response constitutes a 5%
sample of the faculty in all the 720 4-year institutions. The overallcharacteristics of the respondents, in terms of gender, age, degrees and academic
rank, are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Basic Statistics on Gender, Age, Degrees and Rank
highest academic
qualification(%)

academic rank

Surveybachelor

masterdoctorFull
prof.
full prof.

associateprof.

lecturer

assistantlecturer

CAP

27.8

41.5

30.6

23.5

33.9

28.3

11.3

3

National

57.6

29.5

10

13.4

29.6

32.4

19.8

4.8

genderSurvey

M

F

CAP

63

37

National

57

43

marriage
MarriedSinglemarried single
88

12age (years)

others≤30 31~40

41~50

51~60 > 60

averageage(years)

20.1

38.3

32.3

8.1

1.2

38.7

30

35

25

9

1

(36.3)est

Notes: 1 National surveys for gender and academic rank are for faculty in 720 RHEIs
2 National surveys for age and academic degrees are based on faculty in 1867 RHEIs
3 CAP responses show 5.7% of those with doctorates have post-doctoral awards
4 National surveys for academic degrees shows 2.7% of faculty have sub-degree
qualifications.

Comparison of the sample with figures available from national statistics
shows a number of differences. The sample population contains a lower
proportion of women and of the less senior academic ranks; its average age isslightly older and its academic qualifications – in terms of level of degrees – ishigher. At least in part these discrepancies arise directly from the principles
applied to selection of the CAP sample. The national figures for average age
and degrees are for all 1,867 RHEIs, including the large number of faculty(398,933) in the smaller institutions that do not provide 4-year degree courses; avery large proportion of the faculty in these institutions hold bachelors’ degrees
as their highest qualification. The national figures for gender and academic
rank relate to 4-year institutions but, unlike the sample, include the many smaller

255
and less research intensive institutions that are excluded from the CAP survey
because they do not provide programmes in five or more academic disciplines.

Section 2. Results of the CAP Survey
Age and Qualifications
The academic profession in China is young, with an average age of lessthan 40 years. The average age of faculty responding to the survey is 38.7
years. This reflects the rapid growth of the profession, and consequently of
recruitment to the profession, in recent years.
In total, almost three-quarters of faculty in the CAP sample hold an
advanced degree, the proportion with bachelors’ degrees only having fallen to
24.7%. The largest individual group are those with masters’ degrees (41.5%);
almost 1 in 3 hold doctorates (30.6%), of whom 5.7% also hold post-doctoral
awards.
The somewhat greater average age of the CAP sample in comparison withthe figure from the national statistics (est 36.3 years) partly reflects these highproportions. Attaining this level of advanced degrees at a time of rapid system
growth may well in part be derived from the mix of academic disciplines in thesample (see below) but it also clearly indicates a professional commitment toadvanced study.
Academic Rank
A substantial majority of respondents are in positions with senior academic
rank, with associate professors constituting the largest individual group.
Almost 1 in 4 of faculty are full professors (23.5%) and 1 in 3 associate
professors (33.9%). Given the age distribution, this implies that appointment
and promotion to the professoriate can occur at comparatively young ages.
Table 3. Academic Disciplines of Respondents in the CAP Survey
Disciplinary Area

Proportion

Disciplinary Area

Proportion

Physical Sciences

23%

Law

4.5%

Engineering

21.4%

Medical Sciences

3.2%

Humanities & Arts

14 %Life Sciences

3.2%

Business & Administration

12.9%

Social & Behavioural Sciences

2.7%

Education

10.8%

Agriculture

1.2%

Note: The survey also showed respondents in personal, transport and security services(0.2%), other (2.3%), and not applicable (0.4%)

256
Academic Disciplines
The range of subject areas in which respondents locate their academic work
is summarised in Table 3. The survey identified 12 disciplinary areas. Of
these, five account for four-fifths of all respondents: “physical sciences”(including mathematics and computer science) (23%), “engineering” (including
manufacturing, construction and architecture) (21.4%), “humanities and arts”(14%), “business and administration” (including economics) (12.9%) andeducation (10.8%). On the basis of the selection principles adopted, these five
disciplines are likely to figure prominently in a large majority of institutions
selected to participate in the CAP survey. Far smaller numbers are present inother areas: “law” (4.5%), “medical sciences” (including health and relatedsciences and social services) (3.2%), “life sciences” (3.2%), “social andbehavioural sciences” (2.7%) and “agriculture” (1.2%).
The numbers identified in the area of social and behavioural sciences are
small; but if the aggregation followed a common practice of including law andeducation in the social sciences, the total would amount to almost 1 in 5. The
further inclusion of business and administrative studies would bring the total toalmost 1 in 3. In contrast the small proportions of medical and life sciences arenoteworthy, but again, if grouped with the physical sciences and engineering,
they constitute half of all the respondents. The widely established practice of
expecting completion of doctorates in these laboratory and engineering
disciplines before appointment to established academic positions will clearly
influence the high proportion of higher degrees shown in the response to thesurvey.
Supplementary Survey Responses
The standard CAP survey was augmented in China to provide data on anumber of issues related to the social structure of the academic profession. The
extension involved two additional surveys by questionnaire and two special
research studies.
A survey by questionnaire of PhD students in key universities was directed
at seeking information on the young generation of the academic profession in
China. A sample of 600 students in two universities was surveyed. The
students were selected by random sampling and provided responses from 11
academic disciplines. The response rate was high (89%). The respondents
had an average age of 28 years, slightly over 1 in 3 was female (35%) and the
majority were single (67%).
A second survey by questionnaire addressed the effects of the severely

257
increased professional demands on the health of the academic profession in a
key university. A sample of one thousand full and associate professors in
Huazhong University of Science and Technology (HUST) was selected from the
37 schools and departments of the university. The response rate was 66%.
A sample of junior faculty, also drawn from HUST, has been involved in aseries of extensive and intensive study. The sample comprised 12 members offaculty all aged less than 36 years. They represented three disciplinary groups;
five of them were women. The study entailed a combination of interviews,
observation, detailed study, and further interviews in order to discover problems
facing young faculty.
The fourth supplementary programme consisted of a linked series oftheoretical studies on the culture of the academic profession conducted jointly
between HUST and the University of Hong Kong. This has involved joint
seminars in Hong Kong and in HUST. The work of six graduate students
taking part in the programme has led to dissertations and been discussed at theseminars. Two of them are PhD students who addressed the logic ofdevelopment in the academic profession and the growth of its international
competitiveness respectively; the remaining four are masters’ students whose
work has included study of new recruits and gender issues. When completed
the results of all the four programmes will be reported as part of the final reportof the China CAP project.

Section 3.
China

Change and Progress in the Academic Profession in

The CAP survey has revealed significant changes in the work, rewards andexpectations for the academic profession. China did not participate in theprevious international study in 1992, so essentially perception of comparativechange relates to 1978 when the major national reform programme commenced.
On this basis, many faculty indicate positive developments in accord with the
purposes of expansion of provision for higher education and rising academic
standards. This section is concerned with changes in conditions of employment,
remuneration, and the extent and depth of academic experience; otherdevelopments that particularly affect the future of the academic profession andindicate unsatisfied demands are identified in the subsequent section.

258
Enhancement of Academic Degrees
The substantial growth of provision for higher education and of theacademic profession became evident in the 1990s. Previously, a highproportion of those teaching in HEIs in China did not hold advanced degrees.
Through the 1990s there was a steady but slow increase in the number of faculty
who acquired masters’ and doctors’ degrees. These increases accelerated and,in the new century, have become rapid transformations of the profession (Figure1). Responses to the CAP survey show essentially a doubling of the
proportions holding masters’ and doctoral degrees since 2000. Moreover there
18

%

16
14
12
10
8
6
4

masterdoctor

2007

2005
2006

2004

2000

2001
2002
2003

1999

1997
1998

1996

1994
1995

1992
1993

1990

bachelor

1991

1987
1988
1989

1985

1986

1983

1984

0

1982

2

post-doc

Figure 1. Enhancement of Degrees by the Academic Profession in China

are similarly significant increase in those obtaining post-doctoral awards andexperience. Undoubtedly the figures are influenced by the substantial emphasison laboratory sciences and engineering in the larger RHEIs selected for thesurvey. But at the same time they indicate the increasing emphases on thegrowth of graduate schools and research in these large RHEIs.
Earnings
To sustain the rapid expansion of the academic profession it is necessarythat it is seen as providing an attractive career. In part this is aided by theperception that advanced study is both intellectually enjoyable and also
necessary in terms of knowledge, achievement and reward. Historically,advanced study has been seen as primarily designed for, and a precursor to,259
provision of the recruits and replacements for the academic profession. In
recent years this view has needed modification as employers across the economy
have identified advantages accruing from recruitment of graduates withadvanced degrees. These greater employment opportunities, often combining
attractive work and environment with high pay, have presented problems forrecruitment to the academic profession in some disciplines and in some countries.
In China the achievement of rapid growth in the academic profession has been
aided by a greater growth in the number of graduating students; but this has beenaccompanied by an even greater growth in the national economy. It is thereforeof particular interest to see to what extent the rewards in terms of earnings offaculty compare with those elsewhere in the economy.
Statistics published in 2003 and 2006 are now available to show how they
have changed in recent years. A national survey in 2003 involved 72 nationaland 27 local regional HEIs; it received responses from 12,688 faculty and staff.
The average earnings in the year 2002 were $4,498 (US dollars). The CAP
survey, by using data for earnings in 2006 in the 68 RHEIs gives a value of
average academic faculty earnings of $6,318, roughly corresponding to anominal annual rate of increase of 10%.
management
sport/entertain
health/welfare
education
services
public facility
research/techbusinessreal estate
financehotelstrade
info/compu/softwaretransport
construction
production/supply
manufactureminingagriculture
19 sectors total
0

3110
3565
3254
2885
2487
2156
4365
3381
3067
4896
2102
2455
5991
3326
2230
3921
2514
3328
1278
2877
1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Figure 2. National Statistics for Average Earnings 2006

(US$)

The levels of earnings need to be seen in the context of levels in
employment across the wider Chinese economy. Data available in the general

260
national statistics for 19 economic sectors in 2006 provide a more reliable
comparison (Figure 2). Figures for individual employment sectors range from$5,991 for those employed in IT, computer services and software to $1,278 for
those working in agriculture. The financial sector ($4,896) and research andtechnical services ($4,365) are relatively high paid sectors; education ($2,885)
lies close to the average. It is therefore striking that faculty in the CAP survey
report average earnings higher than any sector identified in the national statistics.
Working Conditions
One expectation in the academic world is that periods of rapid growth instudent numbers and institutional expansion do not coincide with good working
conditions. Despite the long average working week of 53 hours reported byfaculty, the CAP survey confutes this expectation. The responses indicate thatgenerally working conditions are at least adequate (Figure 3). In terms ofphysical facilities (classrooms, laboratories, office space) provision is seen as
better than average; and similarly, facilities and equipment (libraries, computing,telecommunications, equipment) are also regarded as above average. Notably,provision of teaching technology is widely regarded as good. There are
exceptions: provision of support in the form of secretarial and research support
staff is seen as falling below average expectation though the amount of(1=excellent, 5=poor)
3.56

research funding

3.39

secretarial

3.14

research support staff

3.02
2.98

office spaceequipment

2.87

teaching support staff
laboratories

2.84
2.82
2.67

telecommunications
computer

2.66
2.48

libraryteaching technology

mean values

2.28

classrooms
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Figure 3. Evaluation of Working Conditions by Faculty in China (2007)

261
teaching support staff is seen to be better. The least satisfactory level ofprovision is perceived to be in research funding for which the lowest averageapproval rating (3.56, 1=excellent, 5= poor) is recorded.
The overall position is that of a reasonable level of satisfaction with thecurrent situation corresponding to a substantial measure of improvement inworking conditions. In answer to the question “Since you started your career,
have the overall working conditions in higher education and research institutes
improved?” over 6 in 10 faculty indicated they were in agreement by being
either very much improved (25.2%) or improved (35.7%) with a further 27.9%
agreeing to a moderate improvement.

Section 4.

The State of the Profession

Responses to the survey show that overall, faculty are well satisfied withthe state of the academic profession in HEIs in China. This does not cover
every aspect of work – research funding is a notable exception – but it does
apply to many of the professional aspects. Thus close to 6 in 10 faculty
indicate that their satisfaction with their current job is high (53.5%) or very high
(4.2%), with a further 34.3% expressing moderate satisfaction. Moreover, alarge majority (78.8%) reject the proposition that if given the opportunity theywould not now become academics (strongly reject 40%, reject 19.9%,
moderately reject 18.9%).
These views are clearly echoed in the relatively small numbers who havethought, acted or decided to leave the academic profession. The population of
respondents who have considered making a major professional change is no
more than 28% (cf. UK, 77%). Of these only 1 in 5 contemplated leaving theacademic profession; the others considered moves within the profession, either
to another academic post in China (1 in 3) or overseas (1 in 8), or to a
managerial post in their existing institution (1 in 3). In the event, less than 11%
of faculty actually took concrete action with only 1 in 10 of them leaving theacademic profession. The large majority of those who actually made a majorchange stayed within the academic world: 8% moved to an academic post
overseas, 41% moved to another academic post in China, and 40.5% moved to a
managerial position in their existing university. The situation is clearly one ofstability to the extent of immobility: the figures indicate that among the survey
population, inter-university mobility amounts to no more than 5% of all faculty.

262
%
35

31.4

30
25
19.8
20
15
10
5
0
excellent

good

moderate

total

national institutions

p oorerp oor

regional institutions

Figure 4. Evaluation of Research Funding by Faculty in China (2007)

The evident satisfaction with the profession does not extend to provision forresearch. As has already been noted, both research support and researchfunding is seen as less than satisfactory. Slightly over 1 in 3 (36%) received
scholarship or other financial support in their doctoral training; and no more than
1 in 5 regard research funding as either good (15%) or excellent (5%).Clear
differences appear in the responses of faculty in the national and the regional
institutions. In the national universities 1 in 4 regard research funding as good
(19.8%) or excellent (5%) and a further 1 in 3 (31.4%) identify it as moderately
good, in total amounting to 56.2%, well over half; in the regional institutions thecomparable figures total well under half (45.5%).
Most financial support for research is provided from institutional resources(39%) with other public bodies providing a similar total amount (government,
28%, public agencies, 13%). Proportionately, industry (15%) provides morethan is commonly found in the large foreign systems. Unsurprisingly there isincreased pressure on faculty to raise external research funds: well over half of
respondents agree (27%) or strongly agree (31%) that the pressure to raise
external funding has increased and a further 27% indicate moderate agreementthat this is so.
The effects of internationalisation and globalisation on teaching andresearch are not prominent in professional life. Less than 1 in 3 faculty teachcourses overseas or in a language other than that normally employed in their
institution. Indeed, 96.3% employ their first language in teaching and 94.2% in
research. There is comparatively little international research collaboration:

263
83.8% of faculty indicate they have no involvement in such collaborations andno more than 4.3% of research funding comes from international sources.
To obtain an overall view of the status of the academic profession in China,
an additional question was included in the questionnaire. Faculty were asked“What is your evaluation of the overall performance of the academic
profession?” The responses provide an overwhelmingly positive image. Over
70% state that their evaluation is either very good (6.3%) or good (64.5%); witha further 27% indicating their estimation as moderately good; only 2 in 100 feel
it is either bad (1.9%) or very bad (0.3%). Clearly while there are aspects inwhich there is evidently room for improvement, the academic profession is seen
to satisfy the aspirations of faculty across the system.

Conclusions
The purpose of the CAP survey is to obtain an assessment of the current
situation and circumstances of the academic profession. The immediate factual
description given directly by the statistics of the responses provides an image ofa vigorous profession enjoying adequate conditions for achieving satisfying
academic results. Further analysis will add perspective through identificationof attitudes to management issues, productivities, balance between research andteaching, mobility and career development, and increasing demands addressed tothe profession.
More general issues remain to be explored. Despite the short time span,
China, now with 22% of the age group participating has a mass higher education
system. Within it, the pressures from massification differ widely, as do theresources available for response. The relative roles of national and regional
institutions and of the various categories of key institutions, with respect both tostudents and faculty, provide aspects of particular sensitivity: conflict between
quantity and quality present crucial problems.
The continuing growth of the higher education system in China provides a
special challenge. As with any expanding enterprise, the development offers
professional opportunity but its achievement is dependent on the availability ofresources. A critical resource is the availability of new recruits to the academic
profession. Currently new graduates are attracted to the profession by a
combination of intellectual, social and economic aspiration. The ability tocontribute to widening educational opportunity and to advance learning, toachieve high earnings and social status in stable employment, and to enjoy
academic life – and its summer and winter holidays – constitutes a powerful

264
prospectus. The image of the profession reflects the high level of satisfaction
expressed by current faculty in their responses to the survey. It is hoped that
our supplemental survey of current graduate students will confirm this image asthat of the next generation of the Chinese academic profession.
Acknowledgements
The work of the China CAP group has been dependent on many individuals
and bodies. We are much indebted to their support. In particular it isimportant to identify the following for their contributions: Human Resource
Bureau of the State Ministry of Education; Ford Foundation, Beijing Office;Professor Jurgen Enders; the CAP Workshops in Paris, London, Hiroshima(twice), Kassel, Hong Kong; and for the China team in Wuhan and Hong Kong.
The author must express her acknowledgement of the contributions made by all
the team members of the China Case Study.

265

Analyses of the Educational Backgrounds and Career
Paths of Faculty in Higher Education Institutions in
Beijing Municipality, China

Yan Fengqiao∗ and Chen Yuan∗∗Section 1: Research Questions
The academic profession can be specifically identified as the members offaculty in higher education institutions (HEIs) (Light, 1977, p.11). China’s
higher education system ranks as first in the world by measure of enrolment.1
Correspondingly, it has one of the biggest faculty profiles. In 2005, there were
1,072,691 full-time faculty members in all kinds of HEIs including regular HEIs,
adult HEIs and private HEIs, among which 965,893 full-time faculty members,
or 90.04% worked in regular HEIs (Ministry of Education, China, 2005, p.45).
However, little empirical research has been done with regard to the academic
profession. The importance of research on this topic is not only due to the size
but also due to a special Chinese academic ecology, which shapes the academic
profession. The modern university originated from European universities in the
medieval period (Arimoto, 2007, p.5).
When the European university
prototype spread out all over the world, it became embedded in specific societies
with idiosyncratic characters. This is why we see many diverse higher
education systems nowadays (Clark, 1983; Arimoto, 2007, p.8). By the same
token, it is assumed that the academic profession acquires idiosyncratic∗

Professor, Graduate School of Education, Peking University, China, e-mail: fengqiaoyan@yahoo.com.
∗∗
Graduate Student (Master’s Course), Graduate School of Education, Peking University,
China, e-mail: st520@gse.pku.edu.cn.
1
The study focuses on mainland of China. It does not take Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan
into account.

266
characteristics in the embedded higher education system (Altbach & Lewis, 1996,
p.5; Enders, 2006, p.16).
What are the idiosyncratic characteristics of the Chinese academic
profession that this paper is exploring? To get answers to this question, it isnecessary at the outset to make a comparison between Chinese firms and western
firms. Scholars have termed Chinese firms as danwei, the characteristics ofwhich are formed in a state-controlled system and differ from rational andautonomous organizations in market systems. Not only is danwei an economic
unit, it is also a political and social unit (Lu & Perry, 1997, p.5). From a
political perspective, danwei is penetrated by the ruling party. From a social
perspective, danwei is a small and self-sufficient society in which few exchanges
are necessary between danweis. In danwei, the relationship between employers
and employees is not a market type but a dependent type (Walder, 1996, p.12).
Like Chinese firms, Chinese HEIs also undertake some political and social
functions, and they differ from western universities in some ways (Yan, 2004).
In addition to the above broad generalization, the Chinese academic profession is
specifically characterized with monotonous educational backgrounds or
inbreeding, stagnation or low mobility, permanent employment or the so-called“iron rice bowl”, and so forth. China’s permanent employment has superficial
similarity to but is quite different in nature from the tenure system that has
ensured academic freedom in Western universities. Furthermore, the stronger
loyalty to discipline than to institution which has been identified in Western
institutions has not been verified in Chinese settings. In contrast, the strong ties
that faculty have with institutions weaken disciplinary collaborationinter-institutionally. In 1997, China’s National Education Commission (now the
Ministry of Education) organized a national survey of university faculty. The
survey showed that faculty who have studied and now work in the same
institution and the same discipline account for 33%, faculty who studied andwork in the same institution but in different disciplines account for 5%, andfaculty who studied and work in different institutions but in the same discipline
account for 62%. The phenomenon of a monotonous background is more
appealing for key universities in which their faculty recruitment is constrained totheir own graduates to a great extent. This leads to generations of scholars withsimilar educational backgrounds working under the same roof (Ma, 2001; Zhang,
2004, p.32).
Why are we concerned with academic organization when we study theacademic profession? The openness or closeness of academic systems has
significant impacts on academic productivity. In particular, academic openness

267
is supposed to have positive impacts on academic productivity, while academic
closeness is supposed to have negative impacts. Academic inbreeding is one
kind of academic closeness, and it is specified as a scenario where faculty
continue to teach in the same university or college from which they graduated.
International experience tells that apprenticeship in the small chair system caneasily lead to academic inbreeding and nepotism. Owing to this drawback, thesmall chair system has been replaced by the large chair system, which is
supposed to be conducive to academic productivity and creativity. Since the19th century, Harvard, Yale and Princeton have controlled their inbreeding ratio
below 30% by formal or informal norms (Arimoto, 2007, p.16). In addition,
regulatory frameworks have evolved or have been laid down in many university
systems so as to prevent inbreeding, have faculty promoted up or out, haverecruitment policy based on public competition, and foster an academic labour
market. Some German and the American universities even forbid promotion to
full professorship from internal applicants. British universities abolishedfaculty permanent employment and replaced it with renewable contracts for new
entrants (Altbach & Lewis, 1996, p.8). Japanese universities changed theirfaculty status from “civil servant” to “institutional employee”. In sum, almost
all HE systems are exploring productive organizational arrangements where
academic professionals can work efficiently and effectively.
This research is concerned with the magnitudes of academic inbreeding andstagnation in Chinese HEIs. By analyzing educational backgrounds and career
paths of faculty in the HEIs of the Beijing Municipality, this paper seeks to
explore the idiosyncratic characteristics of the Chinese academic profession.
Because the academic profession, as an integrated concept, is being challenged
owing to its big variations, it has to be considered in sub-categories according todiscipline, institutional type, and rank (Enders, 2006, pp.9-10). In thefollowing sections, attention will be paid to the whole category as well as to its
sub-categories. Three types of discipline are classified as natural sciences,
social sciences and humanities; three or four tiers of HEIs are classified as key
universities (“985” and “211”),2 ordinary universities and vocational colleges,
and four ranks are classified as professors, associate professors, lecturers andassistant professors.

2

Two projects that Chinese government stipulated intend to select the top two dozen and top
one hundred for investment and capacity building.

268

Section 2: Educational Backgrounds of Faculty
The combination of academic degrees held by faculty (xueyuan guanxi) is
an operational concept in this study, and it refers to a relatively steadyrelationship among the faculty’s learning or the institutional composition of thehighest degrees held by all faculty members (Ma, 2001; Wu & Xiong, 2000).
Other scholars deem that it is necessary to examine disciplines in addition to theinstitutional composition (Zhang & Zhao, 2003). The common concern for all
definitions and considerations is academic inbreeding, and a measure of this canbe derived from faculty’s educational backgrounds. Members of faculty’s
educational backgrounds are considered to be diverse if they work in a university
or college other than where they studied, or to be monotonous if they remain in
the same one. If the latter is a common occurence, it means that students haveless exposure to different and fresh knowledge and ways of thinking, which isrhetorically referred to as academic inbreeding.
Table 1. Dispersion of Valid Responses
Key universities

Ordinary universities

Colleges

Beijing Union University (176)

Beijing Electronic Science andTechnology Vocational College(59)

Capital Medical University (90)Peking University FounderTechnology College (78)

Beijing Information Science andTechnology University (122)Beijing Vocational College ofFinance and Commerce (59)Beijing Agricultural College(207)

Beijing Polytechnic College(116)

Peking University (225)
Beijing Institute of Technology(239)
Beijing University ofTechnology (517)
Beijing University of Chemical
Technology (161)
China University of Petroleum(177)
University of Science andTechnology Beijing (226)
Beijing Foreign Studies
University (33)
University of International
Business and Economics (70)
Capital Normal University (115)
China University of Political
Science and Law (72)Communication University of
China (84)

Beijing Wuzi University (132)

University for Science andTechnology Beijing (167)

The National Academy ofChinese Theatre Arts (95)

Note: The figures in brackets indicate the number of valid responses.

In order to study the issue, we have designed a questionnaire with questions
regarding the educational institutions, disciplines and the year of admission as269
well as that of graduation for each degree etc. A stratified sampling approachhas been employed in the survey. In total, 3,220 valid responses have beencollected from 22 universities and colleges, among which 1,919 (59.6%) arefrom 11 key universities, 822 (25.5%) are from 6 ordinary universities and 479(14.9%) are from 5 vocational colleges.3 Table 1 shows a list of surveyed
institutions and numbers of questionnaires returned from each institution.
Table 2.

Discipline

National Profiles of the Academic Profession in Regular HEIs
by Academic Fields and Ranks in 2005
Fields

Total

Professor

Associate
professor

Lecturer

Assistantprofessor

No rank

NaturalScience

122,985

15,93741,45636,39922,482

6,711

sciences

Engineering

260,059

28,73476,731

82,36856,153

16,073

Agriculture

27,815

3,845

8,914

8,786

4,755

1,515

Medicine

68,164

10,56521,063

20,491

12,683

3,362

Sub-total

479,02359,081

148,164

148,044

96,073

27,661(%)(49.6)(61.2)(53.3)(47.5)(44.7)(42.9)

SocialEconomics

58,607

5,511

16,897

20,591

11,783

3,825

sciencesLaw40,383

3,551

11,174

13,924

8,833

2,901

Education

82,917

4,489

23,193

28,61920,428

6,188

Management

56,893

5,420

15,67019,004

12,375

4,424

Sub-total

238,800

18,971

66,934

82,13853,41917,338(26.9)

Humanities(%)(24.7)(19.6)(24.1)(26.3)(24.9)

Philosophy

31,011

3,307

10,478

10,612

5,026

1,588

Literature

205,155

13,277

48,862

67,38958,393

17,234

History

11,850

1,916

3,762

3,775

1,803

594

Sub-total

248,016

18,50063,102

81,77665,222

19,416(25.7)(19.2)(22.6)(26.2)(30.4)(30.2)

Total

965,839

96,552

278,200

311,958

214,71464,415

(%)

(100)

(100)

(100)

(100)

(100)

(100)

(%)

(100)

(10.0)(28.8)(32.3)(22.2)(6.7)(%)

Source: Ministry of Education, China, China Educational Statistical Yearbook 2005, Beijing:
Renmin Educational Publishing House.
Note:
On the bottom row, the figures represent the percentage of each rank.

Before discussing the analysis of the data in the sample, it is necessary todescribe the statistical data for the academic profession as a whole in the country.
Table 2 is a matrix of the academic profession by academic fields and ranks.
3

The sampled academic profiles seem to be superior to national academic profiles if wecompare sampled statistics with national statistics. It means that faculty from key
universities are over-represented in the sample.

270
By studying the distribution of the academic profession by academic fields, we
can see that faculty from natural sciences represent 49.6 %, faculty from social
sciences represent 24.7%, and faculty from humanities represent 25.7%. By
studying the distribution of the academic profession by academic ranks, we cansee that full professors represent 10.0%, associate professors 28.8%, lecturers
32.3%, assistant professors 22.2%, and faculty with no rank 6.7%. By
comparing the sample data and national data in the following discussion, it
appears that the sample data over-represent senior ranks.

1. Academic Degrees held by Faculty
Given the assumption of the quality of academic degrees, they provide a
primary indicator of faculty qualification. The degree combination has been
calculated based on data obtained from questionnaires (Table 3). On average,
the percentage of faculty with doctorates is 38% but with a big variation acrossthe three tiers of institutions.4 Doctoral degrees or the highest professional
degrees are prerequisites for many European and North American HEIs (Light,
1977, p.14). Since China established the academic degree system in 1980, theeducational background of faculty has been upgraded significantly. However, it
still lags far behind faculty profiles in some developed countries. For example,
the proportion of faculty with a doctorate was 74%, 57%, 62% and 70% in
Korea, Japan, the United States and England respectively in 1991 withsignificant variation between research institutions and non-research ones (Lee,
1996, p.103; Arimoto, 1996, p.157; Haas, 1996, p.345; Fulton, 1996, p.411).
Table 3 indicates that there is a marked difference in faculty degree profiles
among the different tiers of institutions. For key universities the results form an
inverted triangle with 53.1% of faculty having doctors’ degrees, 33.3% masters’
and 13.6% bachelors’. A parabolic curve is shown for ordinary universities as
57.3% of faculty have masters’, 20.8% and 21.9% bachelors’ and doctors’degrees respectively. The form for vocational colleges is pyramidal as less than
1% of faculty has a doctoral degree, and the ratio of bachelors’ to masters’ isnearly 3:2.

4

The national profiles of the academic profession are inferior to the sampled profiles in termsof academic degrees. Full-time faculty with doctoral degrees, masters’ degrees, bachelors’
degrees, associate degrees and below in regular HEIs were 9.2%, 27.9%, 59.9% and 3.0%
respectively in 2005 (Ministry of Education, China, 2005).

271
Table 3. Degree Combinations(%)
Ordinary
Vocational
Total
Key universities
universities
colleges
21.3
13.6
20.8
59.5
Bachelors
40.4
33.3
57.3
39.7
Masters
38.3
53.1
21.9
0.8
Doctors
Note: All together 1,930 valid responses are available, with 1,796 from key universities, 764
from ordinary universities and 370 from vocational colleges.

Bachelor

MasterDoctor

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

1

2
Total

3

1

2

3

Key universities

12
Ordinary
universities

3

1

2

3

Colleges

Notes: 1) 1, 2, 3 represent three subgroups of ages 20 to 35, 36 to 50 and over
50 years respectively.
2) All together 2,872 valid responses are available, with 1,762 from key
universities, 746 from ordinary universities and 364 from vocational
colleges.
3) The ratio between group 1, 2 and 3 is 47:45:8 in general,5 43:48:9 in key
universities, 47:46:7 in ordinary universities and 67:24:9 in vocational
colleges.

Figure 1. Degree Dispersion among Different Age Groups

5

The age structure of the sampled academic profession is close to that of the national
academic profession. The ratio between groups 1, 2 and 3 for the national data in 2005
was 48:41:11 (Ministry of Education, China, 2005).

272
In order to carry out a more thorough study, we divided the faculty into
three subgroups according to ages: from 20 to 35, from 36 to 50 and over 50
years. Figure 1 depicts the percentages of degrees held by these threesubgroups.
Several features are revealed by Figure 1. (1) There is an upward trendthat the younger the faculty, the higher the proportion of advanced degrees (i.e.
masters and doctors combined) held. It is true in general and for any given tierof institutions as well, though the trend is especially obvious for groups 1 and 2.
(2) The change in proportion of masters to doctors with age is different fordifferent tiers of institutions. In key universities, the proportion of doctors ishigher than that of masters for each of the three age groups, while that of masters
remains stable; and the younger the faculty are, the higher is the proportion of
doctors. In ordinary universities, the proportion of masters is higher than thatof doctors, that of doctors peaks with group 2 (36-50 years), and that of masters
peaks with group 1 (20-35 years). In vocational colleges, the proportion of
doctors is extremely low, and that of masters peaks with group 1 (20-35 years).
(3) The inverted triangle in key universities and the parabola in ordinary
universities are more obvious with group 1 and 2, while the pyramidal curve ismore obvious with group 3. These distributions reveal an evolving trend that
more younger than senior faculty tend to hold advanced degrees.
Faculty in HEIs can upgrade their degrees through on-the-job study. Thisis particularly true for an expanding higher education system. Among faculty,
16.7% are masters’ candidates, and 14.2% are doctoral candidates. In order totake on-the-job study into account, we collected data indicating the beginning
year of each degree. Given that variable, the candidates can be regarded as
potential holders of certain degrees, hence the change in degree combination
over the next few years may be revealed.
From the data in Table 4, it is clear that the degree combination will
undergo the following changes. (1) In general, the proportions of doctors rises,
while those of masters and bachelors declines; the proportion of masters declines
roughly by as much as the rise of doctors. (2) In vocational colleges, theproportion of bachelors drops substantially while that of masters rises
substantially and that of doctors rises by a small margin. (3) The proportion ofbachelors in key and ordinary universities remains stable, and that of doctors
rises roughly by as much as the decrease of masters. These changes indicatethat some faculty in HEIs are tending to upgrade their degrees in the short run.

273
Table 4. Degree Combination (including degree candidates)(%)
Ordinary
Vocational
Total
Key universities
universities
colleges
20.8
14.7
20.4
51.3
Bachelors
36.9
28.2
52.3
46.6
Masters
42.3
57.1
27.3
2.1
Doctors
Note: All together 3,000 valid responses are available, with 1,834 from key universities, 782
from ordinary universities, and 382 from vocational colleges.

2. Educational Backgrounds
A Cross-Institutional Perspective
While analyzing faculty’s educational backgrounds, it is important toexamine whether members of faculty are teaching where they studied. Figure 2
delineates alternative pathways that faculty may choose for their destinations at
the point of graduation. For example, bachelor’s degree holders have threechoices. They may go on to graduate studies in the same or another institution
or get a job. Similar choices exist for postgraduates. Faculty who receive
their bachelors’, masters’ and doctoral degrees from three different institutions,have diverse educational backgrounds; otherwise, their educational backgroundis monotonous. Figure 2 shows seven pathways: (1) a bachelor’s degree; (2) abachelors’ and a masters’ degree both from institution A; (3) a bachelor’s degreefrom A and a master’s degree from B; (4) a bachelor’s, a master’s and a doctoral
degree from A; (5) a bachelor’s and a master’s degree from A and a doctoral
degree from B; (6) a bachelor’s degree from A, and a master’s and a doctoral
degree from B; (7) a bachelor’s degree from A, a master’s from B and adoctorate from C.
Bachelor

InstitutionA

MasterInstitution
A

Institution
B

DoctorInstitution
A
Institution
B’

PostDoctorate

Institution
B
Institution
C

Employed

Employed

Employed

Figure 2. Educational Experience and Dispersion

274
Table 5. Degree Dispersion among Institutions(%)
Key
Ordinary
Vocational
Total
universities universities
collegesType 1
100
100
100
100
Bachelors
Total percentage
21.1
14.7
18.4
49.4
Type 2
44.9
53.1
39.4
32.1
Masters
Type 3
55.1
46.9
60.6
67.9
Total percentage
32.8
26.6
45.7
38.9
Type 4
28.8
30.9
17.4
n.a
Type 5
19.4
20.2
14.9
n.a
Doctors
Type 6
23.6
23.4
24.8
n.a
Type 7
28.2
25.6
42.9
n.a
Total percentage
32.8
46.3
19.6
1.5
System default
13.3
12.4
16.3
10.2
Notes: 1) All together 3,220 valid samples are available, with 1,919 from key universities, 822
from ordinary universities and 401 from vocational colleges.
2) System default refers to the percentage of those respondents who did not indicate
personal movement among institutions even though they have the corresponding
degrees.
Bachelor

MasterDoctor
９．４％

Institution
A

Institution
A

Institution
A
Institution
B’

１４．7%
Institution
B

Institution
B

２１．１％

６．４％
PostDoctorate

Institution
C

7．7％

１８．1%
Employed

Employed

９．２％

Employed

Figure 3. Distribution of Educational Experience and Dispersion

In order to examine the issue, the questionnaire asked questions relevant toeliciting information about the granting institutions of each degree that every
respondent holds. We obtain statistics regarding the seven pathways as shownin Table 5.
Combination of the data from Table 5 with those in Figure 2, yields theresults shown in Figure 3. It depicts clearly what institutions faculty choose for
their education.

275
Among faculty with a master’s degree as the highest (including existing
candidates), the proportion of type 3 is higher than that of type 2. Among thosewith a doctorate as the highest degree, type 4 and type 7 account for roughly thesame percentage, though together the proportion of types 5 and 6 combined ishigher than that of 4 and 7 combined. The proportion of type 2 is higher thanthat of type 3 in key universities, and the opposite is true in ordinary universities
and vocational colleges. Among faculty with a doctorate as the highest degree,
type 4 is dominant in key universities while types 5, 6 and 7 are more commonly
seen in ordinary universities (Figures for doctors in vocational colleges areomitted as the proportion is extremely low.)
There are several reasons for the above patterns. First, faculty tend to aim
upward academically, so that graduates from key universities prefer studying
abroad and those from ordinary ones prefer studying in key universities.
Second, generally speaking, key universities have the power to grant allacademic degrees: ordinary universities are usually restricted to masters’ andbachelors’ degrees, while vocational colleges are only able to award associatedegrees. Third, graduates from key universities prefer to stay where they wereeducated for advanced courses because there are limited opportunities formoving upwards. According to the rules, most institutions organize their own
admission examinations for masters’ and doctoral studies. Fourth, specialized
institutions used to dominate the system, and this led to low student mobility
across institutions. Last, combined undergraduate-master and master-doctor
uninterrupted study programs also contribute to a high proportion of types 2, 4
and 6.
Table 5 also shows that faculty members who received all their degrees
within the same institution account for 45.2% of the total, and the figure reaches
61.9% in vocational colleges largely due to the high proportion of faculty with
only a bachelor’s degree.
Excluding faculty with only a bachelor’s degree, those who received alltheir post-bachelors’ degrees within one institution still account for 28.4% in key
universities, a proportion which is higher than that in ordinary universities andvocational colleges.
We can continue to examine how faculty’s degrees in each age group aredispersed across institutions as shown in Figure 4.

276

Master

T

one

two

K

O

Doctor

one

two

three

V

Notes: 1) T - total institutions; K - Key universities; O - Ordinary universities; V - Vocational
colleges.
2) 1, 2, 3 represent three subgroups aged from 20 to 35, 36 to 50 and over 50 years
respectively.
3) For the masters group, all together 989 valid samples are available, with 458 from key
universities, 367 from ordinary universities and 164 from vocational colleges. The
overall ratio of the three groups is 52.7:40.6:6.7, while it is 43.6:45.4:10.9 for key
universities, 55.6:40.6:3.8 for ordinary ones, and 71.3:27.4:1.2 for vocational colleges.
4) For the doctors group, all together 1,204 valid samples are available, with 1,005 from
key universities and 191 from ordinary universities. The ratio of the three groups is
45:50:5 overall, while it is 45:50:5 for key universities and 43:54:3 for ordinary ones.

Figure 4. Dispersion of the Degrees of Each Age Group of Faculty

When the factor of age is taken into consideration, faculty with a master’s
degree show the following two features in terms of dispersion of degrees. (1)Vertically, there are more young faculty with inter-institutional study experience
than senior ones in all three tiers of institutions. But the proportion of facultywith that experience in age group 1 remains lower than in age group 2 partly
because some people in age group 1 have not completed their highest degrees.
(2) Horizontally, the order of vocational colleges, ordinary universities and key
universities matches the order of percentages of inter-institutional study
experience ranged from high to low. In other words, faculty members in key
universities tend to have monotonous educational backgrounds. The proportionof inter-institutional study experience is higher for faculty with doctoral degrees
than for faculty with masters’ degrees. This is a natural phenomenon.
A Multiple-disciplinary Perspective
Another perspective from which to study faculty’s educational backgrounds
is through examining their multiple-disciplinary or cross-disciplinary experience.

277
Modern knowledge is represented by disciplinary knowledge (Arimoto, 2007,
p.4; Clark, 1987). Correspondingly, the modern academic profession can be
categorized into scientists, social scientists and humanists. It is meaningless totalk about the academic profession without talking about its disciplines.
Multiple-disciplinary frequency for degree holders is shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Multiple-disciplinary Frequency(%)

Bachelors
Masters

Doctors

percentage
none
once
percentage
none
once
twice
percentage

Total

Humanities

20.7
79.4
20.6
35.3
75.8
22.1
2.1
44.0

30.7
82.5
17.5
41.9
79.5
17.3
3.1
27.4

Socialsciences
19.0
70.0
30.0
45.6
60.2
34.9
5.0
35.4

Naturalsciences
17.5
84.1
15.9
28.9
79.0
20.0
1.1
53.6

Note: All together 2,732 valid samples are available, with 463 from Key universities, 680
from ordinary universities and 1,589 from colleges.

In general, the proportion of faculty with multiple-disciplinary experience ismuch lower than that of those with only single disciplinary experience. The
proportion of the former is 18% and of the latter 82%. When bachelors are
excluded from the calculation, the proportion of faculty with single-disciplinary
experience still exceeds 60%.
Masters and doctors with single-disciplinary experience still account forover 70% and the figure is higher in the case of masters than doctors.
As the relationship between disciplines varies, people tend to choose theclosely-related ones even when changing disciplines. For convenience,
disciplines are roughly classified into the three categories of humanities, social
sciences and natural sciences. In this study, humanities include philosophy,
literature, history etc.; social sciences include economics, sociology, politics, law,education, management, military studies etc.; natural sciences include sciences,engineering, agronomy, medicine etc.
Table 6 shows that the degree structures for faculty from different
disciplines fall into different patterns. The proportion of doctors in naturalsciences is much higher than in humanities and social sciences; the proportion ofbachelors in humanities is higher than in social sciences and natural sciences;and the proportion of masters in social sciences is higher than in humanities and278
natural sciences.
Faculty from different disciplines also demonstrate different patterns in termsof degree combination and multiple-disciplinary experience. Social sciences
see a higher proportion of faculty with multiple-disciplinary experience than donatural sciences and humanities: in the social sciences the proportion of doctors
with multiple-disciplinary experience is 40%, twice the corresponding figure forthe other two.
Accepting Graduates as Faculty
A number of institutions accept their graduates as faculty, which is partly
responsible for the monotonous educational background of faculty. Table 7
shows the proportion of respondents who work where they received their degrees.
The figures roughly represent cases where graduates are accepted as faculty.
On the whole, 25.7% of respondents work where they studied. Key universities
and natural sciences are ranked at the top.
Extending the scope of statistical analysis into faculty who work where theyused to study with or without interruption, the actual proportion becomes higher
than the figures shown in Table 7. The proportion increases from 25.7% to30.8% and to 41.2% for key universities and to 36.4% for natural sciences.
We can forecast the trend by comparing the cases of senior and young
faculty. Table 8 shows the proportions, in different age groups, in different tiersof institutions and in different disciplines.
Table 7. Proportion of Faculty Who Work Where They Received Their Degrees
(%)
Total

25.7
Key university
Ordinary university
Vocational colleges
Tier
36.3
13.4
—
Humanities
Social sciences
Natural sciences
Discipline
23.7
16.0
30.3
Notes: 1) All together 3,142 valid samples are available for study of institutional tier, with 1,919
from key universities, 822 from ordinary universities and 401 from vocational colleges.
2) All together 3,004 valid samples are available for study of discipline, with 528 from
key universities, 757 from ordinary universities and 1,719 from vocational colleges.

Table 8 indicates that: (1) the proportion of faculty who work where theystudied in key universities is high on the whole, with each age group exceeding
30%, and falls slightly with increasing age; (2) ordinary universities see much
fewer cases than key universities, but the proportion also falls with age; (3)natural sciences also see a falling proportion with age; (4) the opposite trend is279
shown by humanities and social sciences with proportions that increase with age.
Table 8. Proportion of Inbreeding in Different Age Groups, inDifferent Tiers of Institutions and in Different Disciplines
(%)
Age
Key
Ordinary
SocialNatural
Total
Humanities
universities universities
sciencessciences
Range
25-35
25.0
38.3
14.4
17.4
13.4
31.3
36-50
27.3
35.9
13.4
30.5
18.2
31.6
>51
24.1
33.7
8.6
35.8
20.3
21.8
Notes: 1) All together 3,107 valid samples are available, with 1,878 from key universities,
799 from ordinary universities; 514 from humanities, 737 from social sciences and
1,690 from natural sciences.
2) Vocational colleges are excluded as the number of valid samples available isinsufficient.

3. Brief Summary
Some conclusions can be summarized from the above statistical analyses.
1) Doctoral degrees have been obtained by 38.3% of faculty. The degree
combination among the different tiers of institutions has different patterns.
If we order the degrees from doctor to master and bachelor, we find an
inverted triangle for key universities, a parabolic curve for ordinary
universities and a pyramid for vocational colleges.
2) The trend is clear that younger faculty tend to hold more advanced
degrees than senior faculty.
3) The educational backgrounds of faculty in the HEIs of Beijing aremonotonous in terms of the high proportion of faculty who receive all
their degrees in one institution (45.2%). After introducing an age
variable, it is seen to be even more monotonous for faculty aged from 20
to 35 years compared with those aged from 36 to 50 years in all tiers of
institutions. The differing opportunities for older and younger faculty toobtain higher degrees can explain above difference to some extent.
4) Multiple-disciplinary experience is shown by 18% of faculty, which iscorrelated to discipline types. The statistics show that the proportion ishigher for social sciences than for natural sciences.
5) The proportion of faculty who work where they studied is overall 25.7%.
The proportion is relatively higher for key universities and naturalsciences than their counterparts. After comparing the cases of senior
and young faculty, we see an accelerating trend.

280

Section 3: An Analysis of the Career Paths of Faculty
In Section 2, we have analyzed the educational backgrounds of faculty in
HEIs in an attempt to depict their pre-job development patterns. What are theircareer paths like after they become faculty? What is the scenario of work
mobility?
The career paths under discussion refer to how faculty move and achieve
promotion. In the questionnaire, promotion is designed to serve as a time point
for examining the change of professions and affiliations for the sake offeasibility and convenience. There is a four-level hierarchy of ranks including
assistant professor, lecturer, associate professor and professor. There are a few
options for career paths. Faculty may alternatively get promoted within or
outside their own discipline, and in the same or a different institution. Some
faculty have careers that go beyond HEIs. Figure 5 presents several possible
career paths.
Faculty career paths depend on their interests and choice as well as on
academic rules. Low mobility in China is caused by insufficient competitionand low transparency in recruitment and promotion. The academic labormarket has yet to become prominent.

S

S

Prof.

Associate
Prof.

D

D

HE

Sci&resInt.

Gov.

Business

Pub. org.

NHE

Lecturer

S

D

Career paths

AssistantProf.

Note: S – get promotion in the same institution; D – get promotion in adifferent institution; HE – higher education system; NHE – nonhigher education system.

Figure 5. Career Paths

281
Table 9. Changes of Full-time Faculty in Regular HEIs
Factors of Increase
Total
New recruits from graduates
Recruited from otherinst.
Of which:
Doctoralfrom&
SubtotalBachelor Subtotal regular
MasterHEIs
149,495 78,286
44,33532,43143,88826,180(100)(52.4)(29.4)

Total

Retired

44,436(100)

11,775(26.5)

Factors of Decrease
Transferred to non faculty
10,180(22.9)

Non-faculty changed into
faculty
Of which:withchange ofSubtotalstatus in theirown inst.
27,321
15,209(18.2)

Others
22,481(50.6)

Source: Ministry of Education, China, China Educational Statistical Yearbook 2005, Beijing:
Renmin Educational Publishing House.
Note: The figures in brackets represent the percentage of subtotal to total.

Table 9 gives a national picture of faculty mobility. Of the additional
faculty appointments, 52.4% are recruits of new graduates, 29.4% are transferredfrom other institutions, and the rest, 18.2%, are transferred from non-faculty
status. Of the faculty leaving, 26.5% are retired, 22.9% are transferred to
non-faculty status, and the rest, 50.6%, are unspecified. No reasonable
judgments can be made without international and historical references.

1. An Empirical Analysis of Career Paths
In order to study the career trajectories of faculty, we raised the following
aspects in the questionnaires: (1) academic ranks and where they are earned; (2)disciplines involved when earning each rank; (3) job shifts; (4) time spentoutside HEIs such as in government agencies or business firms. We have thefollowing findings after analyzing the responses.
Rank Combination
Figure 6 shows the rank combination of respondents. On the whole, there
is a high proportion of lecturers and associate professors and a low proportion ofassistant professors and professors. The rank combination varies from one tierof institutions to another. Comparatively speaking, key universities have a low
proportion of assistant professors and a high proportion of associate professors
and professors; ordinary universities have high proportions of assistantprofessors and lecturers and low proportions of associate professors and282
professors; vocational colleges further extend the proportions in ordinary
universities.

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Title Combination
14

18.5

3

7.9

28.4

32.8

34.6

36.5
28.7
44.4

39.3

39.1

12.1

5.9

Total

Key univ.
Assist. P

L

39.8
14.9

Ordinary univ.
Assoc. P

CollegesP

Note: All together 2,950 valid samples are available, with 1,836 from key universities,
780 from ordinary universities and 334 from vocational colleges.

Figure 6. Title Combinations (%)

Career Trajectories
Inter-institutional Mobility
Figure 7 shows the inter-institutional flow of faculty of different ranks upon
promotion. In most cases, there is a high proportion of promotion in the same
institution and a low proportion of inter-institutional promotion. Promotion
within the same institution exceeds 60% taking all ranks into consideration.
The higher the rank, the more frequent is the flow between institutions: forlecturers, 11%, associate professors, 25% and for professors nearly 40%. So it
is obvious that promotion and age are both catalysts for mobility. International
academic studies have shown that about 50% of faculty has held appointments atonly one institution, and another 25 percent at two institutions (Altbach & Lewis,
1996, p.11). In comparison with its international counterparts, the Chinese
academic profession is more tranquil.
Figure 7 shows that there is a higher proportion of those who have obtained
outside promotion once than of those doing so twice or more. Less than 30%
of faculty has worked in two institutions, and less than 9% in more than two
institutions. These figures are also smaller than those for international
academic mobility (Altbach & Lewis, 1996, p.11). The low frequency offaculty inter-institution flow is affected by many factors, including individual
preferences, qualifications, hukou (household registration system), the economic,
social and cultural development of the location, differences in academic quality
among institutions, children’s schooling and the affiliation of spouses.

283
Lecturer flow rate

A.P. flow rate

10.62

Professor flow rate
8.85

4.09

0.98

20.84
29.98
89.38

Promotion inside

Promotion outside once

75.08

60.20

Promotion outside twice

Promotion outside three times

Note: Valid samples are from 1,130 lecturers, 941 associate professors and 411 professors.

Figure 7. Inter-institutional Flow upon Promotion (%)

The above analyses have focused on all rank groups as a whole. Whatfeatures do different age groups within each rank group bear in terms ofinter-institutional flow? In order to examine this issue, age was added as avariable. Table 10 shows the statistical results.
Table 10. Promotion and Inter-institutional Flow for Each Age Group(%)
Age Range (years)
Inside promotion
Lecturers
Outside promotion
Ratio
Inside promotion
Outside promotion once
Associate
professors
Outside promotion twice
Ratio
Inside promotion
Outside promotion once
Professors
Outside promotion twice
Outside promotion three times
Ratio

20-35
89.4
10.6
65.6
79.1
17.3
3.6
23.4
66.7
27.8
5.6
0.0
8.9

36-50
90.0
10.0
31.4
72.7
23.0
4.3
66.1
56.9
31.7
9.2
1.9
63.6

>50
81.8
18.2
3.0
81.0
16.0
3.0
10.5
65.5
27.4
7.1
0.0
27.5

Notes: 1) All together 2,612 valid samples are available, with 1,167 from lecturers, 1,027
from associate professors and 418 from professors.
2) Ratio in the table refers to the percentage of valid samples from each age and titlegroup to respondents within each title group.

Table 10 shows that faculty in age group 3 (over 50 years) has the highest
proportion of promotions in a different institution in the case of lecturers. For

284
associate professors, 27.3% of faculty in age group 2 has been promoted in adifferent institution, a higher proportion than those of the other two age groups.
It is also the case with professors that 42.8% of faculty in age group 2 has beenpromoted in a different institution, 10% percent higher than the proportion of age
group 1, and 8% percent higher than of age group 3. The general trend is thatolder faculty have more mobility than their younger counterparts. This finding
is consistent with the international finding (Altbach & Lewis, 1996, p.11).
Table 11. Promotion and Flow Direction
(%)
Total

985
university“211 project”
but non-985
universities

Within

50.8

47.1

36.5

71.5

76.5

Upward

31.7

45.9

43.8

10.8

——

Downward

11.6

2.4

12.7

10.8

23.5

Upwardbeforedownward
Downward before
upward

2.7

3.5

3.5

1.5

——

3.2

1.2

3.5

5.4

——

Ordinary
university

Vocational
colleges

Notes： 1) Among the sample list, Peking University and Beijing Institute of Technology arein the 985 project. All key universities listed in Table 1 are 211 project but
non-985 university except Peking University, Beijing Institute of Technology andCapital Normal University. Capital Normal University is considered as an
ordinary university only here in Table 11.
2) When an institution where a member of faculty used to work is not covered by
Table 1, it is classified according to national lists.
3) All together 526 valid samples are available, with 85 from “985” universities, 260
from “211 project but non-985 universities”, 130 from ordinary universities and
51 from vocational colleges.

By another standard, China’s universities can be divided into four tiers
according to their standings, namely universities listed for the “985 project”,
those listed for the “211 project”, ordinary universities and vocational colleges:of these, the first two tiers constitute the key universities in the previous analyses.
Because a number of faculty have working experience in overseas universities,
we consider overseas universities as a fifth tier and assume that they excel
domestic universities. Members of faculty getting promoted may move within
the same tier, but they may move upward or downward in the hierarchy. We
have analyzed the direction of flow as shown in Table 11. The distribution
shows that 50% of the flow occurs within the same tier, 31.7% upward, 11.6%
downward, with the residual 5.9% accounting for any other cases (e.g. more than

285
one promotion across institutions). In terms of their current affiliation, themajority of faculty in “985” universities and those non-985 universities of the“211 project” obtained their current rank within the same tier or by moving
upward. The proportions for the two cases are the same, but more faculty in“211 project but non-985 universities” obtained their current rank by moving
upward. In ordinary universities 70% of faculty obtained their current rank bystaying within the same tier, and the proportion of upward movement and that ofdownward are even, with both being low. Faculty in vocational colleges either
stay within the same tier or move downward with a rough ratio of 3:1.
Cross-sector Flow
Faculty change their positions within and outside the higher education
system. Some faculty have working experience in other sectors, such as
government agencies, scientific research institutes, business and/or publicorganizations. We will examine their cross-sector flow below by focusing on
working time, ranks obtained outside the educational system, and direction ofcross-sector flow.
a) Working time spent outside the educational system
Among the 3,220 respondents, 26.2% have working experience outside
the educational system, with the time spent varying from 2 months to 40
years. This figure is much below that in many countries, for example
51% in Japan and more than 50% in England in 1991 (Arimoto, 1996,
p.158; Fulton, 1996, p.413). Of these, 12.4% have worked for one year
or less, 26.8% for one to three years (including three years here andhereafter), 18.3% for three to five years, 16.9% for five to eight years,
10.0% for eight to ten years, 7.6% for ten to fifteen years, 4.4% forfifteen to twenty years, and less than 3.6% for over twenty years. The
numbers indicate that among faculty with working experience outside theeducational system, more than half have done so for five years or less.
b) Ranks obtained outside the educational system
Among those faculty members with working experience outside theacademic system, 30% have obtained equivalent ranks. (The percentage
of outside promotion is shown on the left in Figure 8.) Among those
who obtained academic ranks outside the educational system, 35.5%
received them in government agencies, 27.5% in scientific and research
institutes, 21.5% in business, 11.6% in public organizations including

286
hospitals, publishing houses and art galleries. The high shift between
HEIs and government agencies is an interesting phenomenon anddeserves in-depth study later on.

Cross-sector flow direction

Titles obtained outsideMore than one
3.98
public org.
11.55

Inside-Outside-Inside
10.36

Sci&res int.
27.49

business
21.51

89.64
Gov. agencies
35.46
Outside-Inside

Note: 251 faculty members obtained titles outside the educational system.

Figure 8. Promotion and Cross-sector Flow (%)c) Direction of flow
According to the different career paths, there are two directional flows,
one from outside into the educational system, the other going out of theeducational system before re-entry. The right-hand diagram in Figure 8
shows that 89% of faculty fall into the first category while only 10%
belong to the second.
Putting above analyses together, Figure 9 gives a comprehensive picture ofcareer paths. In summary, 11% of assistant professors are promoted to lecturers
outside their current institutions; for lecturers and associate professors the
proportions are 25% and 40% respectively. At least, 9.3% of faculty haveworking experience in government, 7.2% in scientific research institutes, 5.6%
in business, and 3.0% in public organizations.

287

S

S

Prof.

7.2%

D

Associate
Prof.

9.3%

40%

HE

D

Sci&resInt.

Gov.

Business

Pub. org.

NHE
25%

Lecturer

S

D

5.6%

11%

3.0%

Career paths

AssistantProf.

Note: S − get promotion in the same institution; D − get promotion in a different
institution; HE − higher education system; NHE − non higher education
system.

Figure 9. Career Path Distribution

Cross-disciplinary Flow
Faculty may change their disciplines as their academic interests change.
Figure 10 shows that among all respondents there are less than 10% of faculty
showing cross-disciplinary experience upon promotion.

7.4

91.6

Total

Social sciences

4.9

94.2

Natural science

86.9

80
80%

85
85%

Never

0.8
0.9

12.2
93.8

Humanities

1.0

0.6

5.6
90
90%

Once

95
95%

100
100%

More than once

Note: All together 2,254 valid samples are available, with 337 from humanities,
565 from social sciences and 1,418 from natural sciences.

Figure 10. Promotion and Cross-disciplinary Flow

288
Figure 10 also reveals the different patterns of cross-disciplinary flow
among faculty in natural sciences, social sciences and humanities. It is obviousthat there is a higher proportion of cross-disciplinary flow among the social
sciences than in the other two.
Are there any differences among faculty in different age groups in terms ofcross-disciplinary flow? Table 12 gives the results after age is introduced as avariable.
Table 12 shows that there is a significant difference even though faculty
who never crossed disciplines are in a majority in each of the three age groups
and the three disciplines. In humanities, less than 5% in age groups 1 and 2
crossed disciplines compared to more than 17% in age group 3; in social
sciences, over 17% in age group 2 compared to around 6% in age groups 1 and 3changed disciplines; and in natural sciences, the overall proportion of less than
6% for all age groups varies from 8% in age group 2, and 7.6% in age group 3 to
only 2% in age group 1. These differences reflect the observation that the
proportion of faculty crossing disciplines in age group 1 is lower than those forfaculty in age groups 2 and 3.
Table 12. Promotion and Cross-disciplinary Flow of All Age Groups(%)
Age range (years)

20-35
36-50
>50
Never crossed
96.4
95.1
82.4
Once
3.0
4.9
14.7
Humanities
More than once
0.6
0.0
2.9
Ratio
54.0
34.0
12.0
Never crossed
94.3
82.7
92.9
Once
5.7
15.9
7.1
Social sciences
More than once
0.0
1.4
0.0
Ratio
44.3
46.7
9.0
Never crossed
98.0
92.0
92.5
Once
2.0
7.2
6.3
Natural sciences
More than once
0.0
0.8
1.3
Ratio
44.3
46.7
9.0
Notes: 1) All together 2,078 valid samples are available, with 341 from humanities,
449 from social sciences and 1,238 from natural sciences.
2) Ratio in the table refers to the percentage of valid samples from each age
and title group to respondents within each title group.

2. Brief summary
The statistical analyses in Section 3 can be summarized in sevenconclusions.

2891) Among the sample of respondents, professors account for 14%, associate
professors 35% and assistant professors and lecturers 51%. Their rank
combination varies from one tier of institutions to another. Key
universities accommodate a bigger share of associate professors andprofessors. In contrast, ordinary universities and vocational colleges
accommodate bigger shares of assistant professors and lecturers.
2) The academic profession in China tends to be stagnant. More than 60%
of faculty gets promoted in the same institution. The higher theacademic rank, the higher the proportion of inter-institution promotion.
3) After introducing age as a variable, faculty in age group 1 (20-35 years)
tend to get promoted in the same institution, which can be attributed
partially to the opportunities for promotion related to age.
4) Comparing the directions of inter-institution promotion, 50% of suchpromotions are within the same tiers of institutions, 31.7% are upward,
11.6% downward, and 5.9% cases that cannot be simply categorized (e.g.
more than one promotion across institutions). In “985” universities and“211 project but non-985 universities”, the proportion of ranks obtainedby moving upwards equals that from moving within the same tier; theproportion of ranks obtained by moving downward in vocational colleges
is higher than that in the other tiers.
5) From examining the cross-sector flow of faculty, 26.2% have working
experience outside the educational system, but the majority have worked
there for only a short period of time. Government agencies are the mostpopular non-educational workplaces in which faculty get working
experience, followed by scientific and research institutes, business, andpublic organizations. The majority of cross-sector flow is one-way,from outside into the educational system.
6) Analysis of the cross-disciplinary flow of faculty shows the majority does
not cross disciplines. There is a higher proportion of faculty in social
sciences who have changed disciplines than in natural sciences andhumanities.
7) International comparisons show that the Chinese academic profession isless mobile in employment than its international counterparts.

Section 4: Policy Implications
There are few systematic researches on the Chinese academic profession.
This paper is a preliminary and empirical study of China’s academic profession

290
resulting from sampling regular HEIs in the Beijing Municipality. The sample
for this study over-represents academic faculty from top-tier institutions andsenior ranks.
It focuses on the educational backgrounds and careerdevelopment of faculty. Specific data have been obtained to establish the statusquo, some of which can be evaluated by international comparison. This allows
us to draw some generalizations and policy implications from the above analyses.
The academic profession in China’s universities tends to have a monotonouseducational background and be stagnant. This partly results from the danwei
system, where little exchange is needed between social units including HEIs.
As China reforms its university management system, the problems are being
addressed gradually. The following suggestions are put forward in view of themonotonous educational background and stagnation.
1) To expand access to diverse educational opportunities. Those who wantto pursue higher degrees should be encouraged to do so in otherinstitutions than those in which they have been studying. Those who
already have higher degrees should be provided with opportunities tovisit other institutions either at home or abroad.
2) To designate an institutional framework or norm to limit recruitment ofgraduates in their alma mater. International experiences strongly
support a policy of preventing academic inbreeding. Optimistically,some institutions have tried to establish rules to prevent inbreeding.
3) To recruit faculty publicly and to adopt a transparent promotion policy so
as to promote inter-institution and cross-sector flows. Competition
should be encouraged for recruitment and promotion.
4) To encourage cross-disciplinary exchanges and to promote thedevelopment of cross-disciplinary academic work. Cross-disciplinary
academic work can extend beyond the current organizational framework.
Therefore, new organizational arrangements should be created to support
such endeavors.
In conclusion, a set of academic norms and quality criteria, publicrecruitment of faculty and competitive promotion mechanisms are conducive toaddressing the problems of stagnation and monotonous academic andprofessional backgrounds. It remains an arduous task, however. Effective
measures should be taken in accordance with the different tiers of institutions
and disciplinary features.

291
Acknowledgement
The study is sponsored by the “Disciplinary Development of Higher Education
Institutions in Beijing” project with the Education Committee of Beijing municipal
government and the “Studies on Institutional Theory and the Evolution of
University System in China” project (05JJD880053) with the Department of Social
Sciences, Ministry of Education.

References
Altbach, P., & Lewis, L. (1996). Academic Profession in International Perspective. In P.G.
Altbach (ed.), The International Academic Profession: Portraits of Fourteen Countries(pp.3-50). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
Arimoto, A. (1996). The Academic Profession in Japan. In P.G. Altbach (ed.), The
International Academic Profession: Portraits of Fourteen Countries (pp.149-190). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
Arimoto, A. (2007). Constructing University Visions and the Mission of Academic Profession.
Reports of COE International Seminar on Constructing University Visions and theMission of Academic Profession in Asian Countries: A Comparative Perspective.
Hiroshima: Research Institute of Higher Education, Hiroshima University, 3-24
Clark, B. (1983). Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross-national
Perspective. Berkley: University of California Press.
Clark, B. (1987). The Academic Life: Small Worlds, Different Worlds. New Jersey: The
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Enders, J. (2006). The Academic Profession. In J.J.F. Forest, & P.G. Altbach (eds.),
International Handbook of Higher Education (pp.5-22). Netherlands: Springer.
Fulton, O. (1996). The Academic Profession in England on the Eve of Structural Reform. In
P.G. Altbach (ed.), The International Academic Profession: Portraits of Fourteen
Countries (pp.391-438). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
Haas, E. (1996). The American Academic Profession. In P.G. Altbach (ed.), The International
Academic Profession: Portraits of Fourteen Countries (pp.343-390). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
Jiang, Y., & Liu, S. (2004). Study of Educational Experiences of Faculty in World-class
Universities. Jiangsu Higher Education, 4.
Lee, S. (1996). The Academic Profession in Korea. In P.G. Altbach (ed.), The International
Academic Profession: Portraits of Fourteen Countries (pp.97-148). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
Light, Jr. D. (1977). Introduction: The Structure of the Academic Professions. In W.P. Metzger

292(ed.), Reader on the Sociology of the Academic Profession. NY: Arno Press.
Lu, X., & Perry, E. (1997). Introduction: The Changing Chinese Workplace in Historical andHistorical and Comparative Perspective. In X. Lu, & E. Perry (eds.), Danwei: The
Changing Chinese Workplace in Historical and Historical and Comparative Perspective.
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Ma, L. (2001). Manpower Mobility in Universities. Academic Journal of South China Collegeof Nationality. March.
Ministry of Education, China (2005). China Educational Statistical Yearbook 2005. Beijing:
Renmin Educational Publishing House.
Walder, A. (1996). Communist Neo-traditionalism: Work and Authority in Chinese Industry.
Berkley: University of California Press.
Wu, Z.Q., & Xiong, W.H. (2000). Comparative Study of Educational Backgrounds ofUniversity Faculty in Western Countries and China. Jiancai Journal of Higher Education
on Theory and Practice, 1.
Yan, F. (2004). Evolution of Administrative Structure of China’s Universities between 1980
and 2001. COE International Seminar/Eight-Nation Conference on Enhancing Quality
and Building the 21st Century Higher Education System. Hiroshima: Research Institutefor Higher Education, Hiroshima University, December 2004, 129-144.
Yan, F. (2005). Academic Labor Market and Tenure System. Educational Review of Peking
University, 3, 64-69.
Yi, M. (2003). Issues and Policies on Educational Experience of Faculty in Vocational
Colleges. Scientific and Technological Development and Policy, January.
Zhang, G. (2007). Optimization of Educational Experience of University Faculty. Economy
and Social Development, May.
Zhang, P., & Wu, Z. (1999). Comparative Study of Educational Experiences of Faculty in
Chinese and Western Universities. Academic Journal of Guangdong Educational College,
5.
Zhang, G., & Zhao, J. (2003). Exploration of Educational Experience of University Faculty.
Academic Journal of Hebei Agricultural University, December.
Zhang, W. (2004). Logics of University. Beijing: Peking University Press.

293

The Changing Academic Profession in an Era ofUniversity Reform in Japan

Tsukasa Daizen∗ and Atsunori Yamanoi ∗∗After 1990’s, many education reform bills and acts have been enacted inJapan, to deal with the social and economic problems that are common
throughout the world, such as the construction of knowledge-based society andglobalization of the economy, and domestic problems such as the collapse of the
bubble economy, decrease of the population of eighteen-year olds, andconstruction of a society of gender equality (Central Council for Education,2005).
The principal purpose of this article is to clarify the present conditions andthe changes in the past 15 years of the consciousness and action of the Japanese
academic profession by comparing the results of a survey of university teachers
carried out in 2007 with one previously carried out in 1992. In the following
discussion, we describe the results of the Changing Academic Profession Survey
2007 and of the Carnegie Academic Profession Survey 1992. 1 A second
purpose is to clarify whether there is a meaningful difference in the
consciousness and activity of a college professor according to the type ofuniversity.

∗

Professor, RIHE, Hiroshima University, Japan, e-mail: tdaizen@hiroshima-u.ac.jp
Dean and Professor, Faculty of Childhood Education, Kurashiki Sakuyo University, Japan,
e-mail: yamanoi@ksu.ac.jp
1
A number of articles have analysed the results of the Japanese data of the Carnegie
Academic Profession Survey 1992, see for example: Arimoto, A. (1996), Arimoto, A. &Ehara, T. (eds.) (1996), Daizen, T. (1996).
∗∗

294
The data presented are based on the Changing Academic Profession Survey
2007.2 The Japanese version of this survey consisted of a questionnaire offifteen pages with sixty-six questions. Some 6,200 questionnaires were mailed
to nineteen universities (four research universities and fifteen non-research
universities). The number of faculty members responding to the survey was
1,408 (311 from the research universities and 1,094 from the non-research
universities), corresponding to a 22.7 % response rate.
Table 1a. Distribution to universities of CAP survey questionnaires, Japan 2007

2

Recipients of the questionnaire were chosen by a two-stage sampling procedure. Initially,
universities were sampled, and then faculty were sampled from within those institutions.
Prior to sampling, higher education institutions were divided into research universities(kenkyu-daigaku) and all other universities. The criteria used to identify research
universities were taken from the typology developed by Ikuo Amano (1984). Thirty
institutions were designated as research universities and 475 as “other” institutions. Then,in order to select 5% of the permanent faculty, five research universities and 14 non-research
universities were selected.

295
Table 1b. Survey Schedule

Demographic Profile
The Japanese Educational System
Figure 1 shows the structural organization of the present system of school
education in Japan, and indicates the normal ages for admission or progression toeach level of the educational system (MESSC, 2000, p.14-16).
The formal schooling system in Japan includes five levels. Schoolingusually begins at the age of six years, when children move from kindergarten into
primary school. Kindergartens admit children aged 3, 4 or 5 years and provide
them with one- to three-year courses.
Primary and lower secondary education are compulsory. Children must
attend 9 years of compulsory education from age 6 to age 15 years. Upper
secondary education includes a further three or four years of education and isprovided by the upper secondary schools, the miscellaneous schools, thespecialized schools and the colleges of technology. In principle, to enter any
school beyond the compulsory school level, a student is required to pass anentrance examination.
The tertiary level of education includes another two or four years ofeducation provided by universities, junior colleges, specialized training colleges
and colleges of technology.3 Finally, after graduating from university, students
move to the two to five years of graduate education (two-year master of arts
program and a subsequent three-year doctoral program).

3

Formal descriptions of the roles assigned to the different categories of tertiary institutions are
given in an Addendum at the end of this article.

296

Figure 1. Organization of the formal educational system of Japan

Institutional Expansion
The three basic traits of the Japanese higher education system, especially of
its universities, have been expansion, diversification, and stratification.
The Japanese higher education system began to expand in the 1960s (Table2) and to shift away from the “mass” to the “universal” stage of development.
In 1963, 15% of the cohort of eighteen-year olds were enrolled in a college oruniversity. Today, the figure is 53.7%; and 47.2% of the current age cohort
attend a university. Total current enrolment of eighteen-year olds in some formof post-secondary education is 76.3%.
Diversification of higher education has led to the creation of various new
forms of post-secondary education in Japan. These include institutions such as
the short-cycle tanki-daigaku (junior college), the kotosenmon gakko (college oftechnology), and the senshu gakko (specialized training college). However,amid this diversity, the daigaku (university) remains the center of learning,teaching, and research in specialized academic disciplines. There were 245
four-year university institutions in 1960, a decade after the post-war reforms
were implemented. The number exceeded 300 in 1965, grew to nearly 400 in
1970, and had reached 450 by the early 1980s (Table 3). As of 2007, there were297
756 four-year institutions. Within fifty years, the number of universities had
expanded by a factor of 3.
Table 2.

Enrolment in tertiary education in Japan (1955-2007)

Source: MEXT (1950-2007)

There are two main sectors of post-secondary educational institutions:public institutions (consisting of national and municipal sectors) and private
institutions. As of 2007, there were 87 national, 89 municipal, and 580 private
universities. Private-sector Japanese higher education has increased from
57.1% of the system in 1960 to more than 76.7% today. The predominance ofprivate institutions is a significant characteristic of Japanese higher education, as
the substantial support given to private institutions has led to great expansion in
the system.
A kind of hierarchy of institutions has formed in the university system as aresult of diversification and stratification. Generally speaking, the pecking
order among institutions is based on a mixture of type, sector, and age. Older
public institutions with a background in research are considered more prestigious
than the newer, non-research, private institutions. The form of institution
known as kenkyu-daigaku (research university) stands at the top of this hierarchy
today.

298
Table 3. Universities and Junior Colleges in Japan, 1950-2007

Source: MEXT (2007)
Note: Administrative staff includes clerical, technical and other non-academic staff.

Profile of the academic faculty in Japan
Gender
The extent to which higher education in Japan was still a male-dominatedprofession in the last decade of the twentieth century can be seen in Table 4a.
As of 1992, 92.3% of all faculty (123,838) were male (Table 4b). Of the
respondents in the recent CAP survey, 9.0% were female. There are fewer
female faculty in research universities and in the upper ranks across all
institutions. In Japan, women’s representation in universities has improved
substantially since 1955, when only 5.0% of faculty were women (Table 4a),When we compare the ratio of women faculty according to university types,
the proportion in research universities was lowest (6.2%), and highest in private
non-research universities (10.2%) (Table 4c). In all universities the proportionof woman faculty has increased in the past 15 years.

299
Table 4a. Trends in the proportion of female full-time faculty(%)

Source: Kano (2007, p.170), MEXT, (1950-2007).

Table 4b. Gender distribution of university faculty (%)

Table 4c. Gender distribution of university faculty
by type of university(%)

Note: In this and subsequent tables the number of asterisks indicates the level ofstatistical reliability as follows: *** p<0.001; ** p<0.01; * p<0.05.

300
Age
Japanese faculty members are unevenly distributed among the age cohorts(Table 5a.). The statistical mean birth year of all respondents was 1955, and themean age was 51.7 years at the time of the CAP survey.
Table 5a. Age distribution of faculty(%)

In terms of age, about 90% of the entire faculty are in the prime 35-64 year
age group. The mean age of Japanese faculty of 51.7 years in 2007, is a little
older than the 1992 figure of 51.4 years. However, empirical studies offer no
indication that the mean age of Japanese faculty has risen significantly over theyears.
The CAP survey in 2007 showed a significant statistical difference in the
average age of university teachers according to the type of university (Table 5b).
The average age of the faculty in private non-research universities is the highest;
it is lower in national and private research universities. This pattern is similar
to that of 1992.
Table 5b. Age distribution of faculty by type of university

301
Academic Discipline
Faculty in Japan is distributed unevenly among the academic disciplines(Table 6a). Approximately 20% of faculty are appointed in each of the naturalsciences, engineering, and the health sciences; and 10% in each of the humanities,
the social sciences, and agriculture.
The proportions occupied by the humanities and engineering in 2007 havedecreased from 1992, and those due to the social sciences and the health sciences
have increased.
In 2007, the proportion of faculty in the natural sciences was highest in thenational research universities. In contrast, the private non-research universities
show the highest proportions of faculty in the humanities and engineering; andthe private･research universities, the highest proportions of faculty in the social
sciences and health and medical sciences. This distribution was largely similar
to that found in 1992.
Table 6a. Distribution of faculty by academic discipline

Table 6b. Distribution of faculty by academic discipline and type of university

302
Academic Rank
Full-time faculty in Japanese institutions of higher education hold one offour academic ranks: joshu (assistant), kousi (assistant professor or lecturer),
jokyouju (associate professor), and kyouju (full professor).
From 1970 the proportion of full professors increased from 31.4% to 40.7%
in 2007. Excluding assistants, who were not included in the CAP survey, theproportion of full professors in Japan increased from 46.1% in 1970 to 53.2%(Table 7a). The composition of the samples in both the CAP and Carnegie
surveys have remained effectively unchanged in terms of the ratios of full andassociate professors and lecturers over the period 1992 to 2007 (Table 7b).
Table 7a. Distribution of academic rank among faculty

Source: MEXT (1950-2007)

Table 7b. Distribution of academic rank among faculty

Highest Earned Degree
In Japan, the proportion of faculty with doctorates increased substantiallyover the years: from 10% in 1967, to 40% in 1983, and to 78% in 2007 (Table
8a).
A doctoral degree is now a prerequisite for employment of faculty in mostfour-year universities and colleges. Correspondingly, the proportion of thosewith a bachelor’s degree as their highest earned degree has tended to zero. By

303
the time of the CAP survey, most faculty (96%) had received their highest
degrees from a Japanese institution – 2% received degrees in the United States,
and the rest in other countries.
Furthermore, while 78.5% of faculty now hold a PhD, there is wide
variation among institutions, disciplines, and ranks. A strikingly substantial
number of respondents with PhD degrees is found in the natural sciences, ascompared to those in the humanities and social sciences. One reason is that
there are more doctoral programs available in the natural sciences than in thehumanities and social sciences. Thus, the supply of faculty with PhD degrees ishigher in those fields where doctoral programs are more common.
With regard to type of institution, the proportion of doctorates in thenational research universities (92.2％) is highest, but the increase in percentageof doctorates in the national non-research universities, by 16% since 1992, wasthe largest (Table 8b).
Table 8a. Academic credentials of faculty

Table 8b. Academic credentials of faculty by type of university

304

Professional Activity
Overall Workload
The professional work of faculty has traditionally been divided into fourmain areas: teaching, research, service, and administration. In most Japanesefour-year universities, faculty members are largely autonomous in deciding how
they allocate time in their professional work.
In 2007, faculty in four-year institutions, on average, work 55.2 hours per
week during the academic year and 47.6 hours per week during vacation periods(Table 9a).
Table 9a. Time spent per week on professional activities(periods when classes are in session)
2007
Mean
time
(hrs)
Teaching
Research
Service
Administration
Other

21.8
17.6
4.6
7.9
3.3

Total

55.2

1992
(%)

Mean
time
(hrs)

(%)

39.5%
31.9%
8.3%
14.2%
6.0%

19.8
21.6
3.4
5.9
2.8

36.9%
40.4%
6.3%
11.1%
5.3%

53.5

Table 9a. (continued) Time spent per week on professional activities(periods when classes are not in session)
2007
Mean
time
(hrs)
Teaching
Research
Service
Administration
Other

8.5
25.3
4.3
5.4
4.1

Total

47.6

1992
(%)

Mean
time
(hrs)

(%)

17.9%
53.1%
9.1%
11.3%
8.6%

8.0
32.4
3.8
4.0
3.6

15.4%
62.5%
7.4%
7.7%
7.0%

51.8

When classes are in session, 21.8 hours per week are devoted to teaching(including class preparation and student advisement), about 17.6 hours toresearch, 4.6 hours to service, 7.9 hours to administration, and 3.3 hours to other305
professional activities.
Teaching and research are the major areas ofprofessional effort, and together they account for 71.4% of the total working
time.
Although during vacation periods there are 7.6 fewer working hours, thetime spent on research activities increases by as much as 7.7 hours, which during
this period accounts for 53.1% of the total 47.6 hours of work.
In comparison with the 1992 Carnegie study, the time spent on research has
decreased and that on teaching and administration has increased in the 2007 CAP
survey both during the time when classes are in session and in the vacations. In
particular, reduction of the time devoted to research activities in the national
non-research and private research universities is notable (Table 9b).
Table 9b. Time spent per week on professional activities
by type of university

306
Teaching
Quality of Students
In the CAP survey, 35.9% of faculty report that the quality of students
currently enrolled in their departments is about the same as, or better than it was
five years earlier (Table 10a). But, the proportion of faculty who think that thequality of students currently enrolled in their departments is about the same as, or
better than it was five years ago was higher in 1992 than it is in 2007. It seems
that faculty think that students’ quality has deteriorated in these 15 years. The
proportion of faculty who consider that students’ quality has deteriorated in these
15 years has increased more in non-research universities than in research
universities (Table 10b).
Table 10a. Quality of students compared with those enrolled five years ago

Table 10b. Quality of students compared with those enrolled five years ago
by type of university

307
Table 10c. Faculty attitudes toward students

Teaching Load
All Japanese professors are involved, at least to some extent, in teaching(Table 11a). About three-fourths of faculty teach both undergraduate andgraduate courses, while one-fifth teach only undergraduate students; less than 2%
of faculty teach only graduate or professional students.
Table 11a. Teaching responsibilities at respondent’s institution

The CAP survey showed significant differences between the categories ofuniversities in the levels of teaching provided by faculty (Table 11b). While alarge majority of those in the national universities, both research andnon-research, teach both undergraduate and graduate courses, in the private
universities about one-third teach exclusively undergraduate courses. Even so,by comparison with the responses to the Carnegie study, the proportions offaculty exclusively teaching undergraduate courses has substantially decreased.

308
Table 11b. Teaching responsibilities at respondent’s institution by type ofuniversity

Research
Relative Importance of Academic Discipline, Institution and Department
Many Japanese faculty recognize their departments and their major fields ofstudy as the principal factors in their academic life. A large majority indicates ahigher degree of commitment to their academic disciplines (93.1%), incomparison with their departments (68.9%) or institutions (62.5%) (Table 12).
Compared with the responses in 1992, the greater importance attached to thediscipline has substantially increased by 2007. In these regards there are no
substantial variations between the two sectors or types of institutions.
Table 12. Relative importance of discipline, institution, and department

Preference for Teaching or Research
In 2007, only a few faculty report that their interest lies primarily either inteaching (5.5%) or in research (14.4%) (Table 13a). Of those expressing aninterest in both, 57.3% report a greater interest in research and 22.8% of faculty
report a greater interest in teaching.

309
Table 13a.

Preference for teaching or research

Table 13b. Preference for teaching or research by type of university

While overall a substantial majority (71.7%) indicates that research is either
their primary interest or that they lean towards research in their preferences, thisemphasis is most clearly shown in the national universities (Table 13b). In
national research universities almost 90% of respondents indicate a preference or
primary interest in research; and even in the national non-research universities
the corresponding figure remains at 73.8%. In the private universities
substantial majorities also indicate a preference for research, although in both theresearch and non-research universities the proportions are lower than in thecorresponding national universities. In comparison with the results from the
1992 Carnegie study, the responses do show a trend towards teaching, perhaps
corresponding to the greater proportion of time it now occupies. Nevertheless,the great emphasis on research, which placed Japan second highest among thecountries in the Carnegie study, remains clearly evident.
Faculty Attitudes toward Research
In excess of 80% of faculty agree that “A strong record of successful
research activity is important in faculty evaluation at this institution” (Table 14).

310
And, about 50% of faculty also agree with “In my department, it is difficult for a
person to achieve tenure if he or she does not publish” and “I frequently feel
under pressure to do more research than I actually would like to do”. The
degree of agreement with all three statements has increased from 1992 to 2007.
Table 14. Faculty attitudes toward research

Productivity
In academic circles, research has, for the most part, been identified as theprime academic pursuit for faculty. It is then useful to know the extent to which
faculty are involved in research and to what extent they make scholarly
contributions through their research.
How much do Japanese faculty members contribute through their research?
On average over a three-year period, in 2007, a Japanese faculty member writes
1.9 academic books, edits 0.7 books, publishes 9.8 papers in academic journals,
publishes 1.5 monographs, and presents papers 6.7 times at academic
conferences (Table 15a).

311
Table 15a. Research activities and publications in the previous three years

Table 15b. Research activities and publications by university type

312
Depending on the activity, the figures vary extensively. Over thethree-year period, faculty at the national research universities published 15.5
articles in academic journals, while those at non-research universities achieved
7.2 articles. At academic conferences, the former presented papers on 9.9
occasions, while the latter did so on 6.6 occasions (Table 15b). As might be
expected, faculty at a research university are more productive in all areas except
artistic work, and generally a full professor is more productive than an associate
professor or lecturer (Table 15c). In most respects – with a notable exception
for conference presentations – the responses show greater productivity in 2007
than in 1992.
Table 15c.

Research activities and publications by academic rank anduniversity typeResearch Funding
Grant resources are allocated to faculty from government agencies andindividual institutions: for the national universities a large part of the institutional
funds is derived from government sources. Almost all faculty, 94.8%, havereceived grants for individual or collaborative research projects in the previous
three years, a substantial increase since 1992. About 40% of the respondents
have had grants totaling less than $25,000, while 22.0% have received $100,000
or more (Table 16a).

313
Table 16a. Research funding in the previous three years

The extent of research support varies widely with academic discipline. A
high proportion of research funds of $100,000 or more goes to faculty in thenatural sciences (including engineering, agriculture and medical and healthscience) (Table 16b). The breakdown among disciplines receiving researchmoneys is as follows: 3.4% in the humanities, 5.4% in the social sciences, 24.9%
in engineering, 31.2% in the natural sciences, 34.4% in agriculture, 32.3% inmedicine and dentistry, and less than 1.0% in the fine arts and physicaleducation.
The proportion of faculty in the national research universities who received
research funds of $100,000 or more amounted to almost one-half at 46.9% andwas more than twice as high as in the national non-research universities andfour-times higher than in the private non-research universities (Table 16c).

314

Table 16c. Research funding by university type

Table 16b. Research funding by academic discipline

314

315
Administration
Institutional GovernanceWith a long tradition of academic autonomy and governance, Japanesefaculty still view the governance at their institutions as somewhat decentralized(Table 17). They believe the power of the top administrators is exercised indecisions on such major administrative affairs as budget priorities, establishinginternational linkages and selection of key administrators. Members of faculty
are seen to participate in those institutional decisions such as determining theoverall teaching load of faculty, choosing new faculty, faculty promotion andtenure, admission standards for undergraduate students, and approval of newacademic programs.
Table 17. Faculty perceptions of institutional governance (2007)

This implies that faculty in Japanese institutions of higher education do nothave a great deal of authority in the decision-making process at institutional level.
Only at the departmental level do they have influence on the process. The
extent of faculty influence at each level is shown in Table 18. Comparison withthe responses in 1992 indicates a small trend over time of diminishinginstitutional influence but increasing influence at Faculty and departmental
levels.

316
Table 18. Degree of faculty influence on governance at each institutional level

The vast majority of faculty think that they are not well informed about
what is going on at their institutions (Table 19). Japanese faculty have atendency to characterize the governance at their institutions as autocratic. They
attribute this administrative autocracy to poor communication between thefaculty and administration and to the lack of faculty involvement. In theirwritten comments at the end of the Carnegie survey, faculty expressed a strong
desire for autonomy in institutional governance. The lack of autonomy wasthought to hinder the capacity of each university to develop its uniquecharacteristics and there is no indication that this has changed in 2007.
Reasonable involvement of faculty members in university policymaking andtheir communication with top administrators were seen as critical in developing
institutional governance in Japanese institutions of higher education. It should
be noted, however, that also unchanged is the proportion of faculty, 33%, who
accept that students should have a stronger voice in university governance, evento the extent of determining policies affecting students. This shows that there is
still considerable opposition among faculty to student activism in Japanesecolleges and universities.
Table 19. Faculty attitudes toward governance317

Faculty Evaluation
Formal schemes of academic staff appraisal have been introduced fairly
recently into universities. In 2007, the proportion of faculty who reported that
their teaching and research activities were evaluated were 85.2% and 76.4%
respectively. This development has largely occurred since 1992 when the
proportions were 22.3% and 40.4% respectively (Table 20).
Table 20. Faculty reporting that their teaching and research are
regularly assessed by type of university

When asked who performs the evaluation, a clear pattern emerges from theresponses (Table 21). For teaching, students perform the primary role − with
45.4% of faculty reporting that their teaching is now evaluated by students.
Where research is concerned, “senior administrative staff” play the dominant role,with 36.7% of faculty considering that assessment of their research is subject tosenior administrative staff.
Table 21. Source of regular evaluation of teaching and research

318
Jobs and Careers
Income and Benefits
It is widely recognized in Japan that academic salaries are not competitive
with those in other professional and managerial occupations. The median rangeof annual income for faculty lies between $70,000 and $84,000: about one-thirdof faculty falls into this category with about 34 % of faculty members earning
more than $85,000, and a further 33% earning less than $55,000 (Table 22a).
Table 22a.

Faculty income levels and sources

The academic salary structure is uniform across all public colleges anduniversities, though it varies a great deal in private colleges and universities. In
some selective elite private universities, where competition for faculty members
is likely to be most keen, the average salary levels exceed those at public
institutions (Table 22b). Significantly higher proportions of faculty in private
universities than in national universities receive annual incomes in excess of$100,000. Moreover, while in all types of university the proportions with these
relatively higher incomes has increased since 1992, the increases in the private
universities significantly exceed those in the national universities.
The average yearly income of a Japanese 50-year old general worker in2005 was about $50,000 and had changed little in the preceding ten years. The
figures (Tables 22a, 22b) indicate that over the same period the proportion offaculty earning less than $55,000 has fallen, so that over the past 15 years theaverage annual income of the Japanese university teacher has increased relative
to that of the average Japanese worker.

319
Table 22b. Faculty income levels by type of university

Japanese academics receive about 94.1% of their income from theiracademic institution and 5.8% from outside their institution (Table 23). In thepast 15 years, income from outside their institution has decreased; this effect isobserved for all disciplines except health and medical sciences. It is in theprivate research universities that the highest proportion (13.3%) of faculty
obtains external income; but the largest fall in proportion of faculty with external
income since 1992 is also in the private universities
Table 23. Sources of professional income by type of university
and academic discipline

320
Facilities
While few faculty regard facilities as excellent, overall responses show alarge majority of faculty perceived them as fairly adequate, good or excellent(Table 24a). In particular the academic facilities for computing, libraries andoffice space appear to be seen as satisfactory. Conversely provision forlaboratories and secretarial support are seen to be less satisfactory. However incomparison with provisions in 1992, facilities in 2007 are almost all improved.
When analysed in terms of type of university significant differences emerge
Table 24b). Facilities provided in the research universities are regarded as far
more satisfactory than in the non-research universities, and are seen as
particularly good in the private research universities. Conversely leastsatisfaction with all the identified facilities is found in the national non-research
universities. In accord with this, facilities for research equipment andinstruments, computer facilities and libraries are rated as excellent or good by amajority of respondents from research universities, with only secretarial facilities
showing a low rating. In comparison with 1992, all facilities in both types andsectors of universities show notable improvement but the relative improvements
are seen to be substantially greater by faculty in the research universities.
Table 24a. Assessment of facilities

321
Table 24b. Assessment of facilities by type of university(proportion responding “Excellent” or “Good”)

Academic Life
Despite responses indicating longer, harder and more challenging work,
dissatisfaction with governance, and constraints on facilities, the proportions offaculty who regret their commitment to academic life are small (Table 25).
Indeed a large majority of faculty is not merely satisfied with their decision to
adopt an academic life but would encourage a “young person” to undertake anacademic career in their discipline. Moreover, a lower proportion of faculty in2007 is dissatisfied with academic life than in 1992. Even so, a substantial
majority does record their agreement with the statement that “My job is a sourceof considerable personal strain”.
Among the different types and sectors of universities, even fewer in the
research universities regret their choice of career, though curiously in the private
research universities is the highest proportion (12.5%) who would not advise ayoung person to begin an academic career. Perhaps significantly, marginallymore faculty in the research universities report considerable personal strain in
their jobs.

322
Table 25. Attitudes to academic careers and employment by type of university

Conclusion
It is inevitable that a higher education system will respond to environmental
and social change. In Japan, the reduction of the 18-year old population and thework force accompanying a decline in the birthrate, administrative and fiscal
reform, and the internationalization and globalization of society and the economy
have provided imperatives for change. Since 1991, a series of new higher
education policies has been implemented with major consequences for theacademic market place in Japan.
From an examination of the profile of Japanese faculty, three components
especially show dramatic changes in the period from 1992 to 2007: theproportions of female faculty, of faculty with doctorates and of non-tenured
faculty have all risen substantially during this period. These results can be seenas the direct effects of policies to hire more woman researchers, to provide
substance for graduate school education and to invigorate research activity.
An increased emphasis on teaching can be seen. Time devoted to teachinghas increased from 1992 to 2007; and, in most universities, faculty assign aslightly greater preference to teaching. The participation rate in university
education increased abruptly up after 1992, at a time when the 18-year old age
cohorts were declining. As a result, students’ quality has further diversified andthe educational expectations placed on faculty have grown.
At the same time, expansion of graduate schools and graduate courses has
imposed additional demands for teaching. The proportion of faculty committed
exclusively to teaching university undergraduate courses has decreased, and the
proportion of faculty responsible for both a university undergraduate course anda graduate program has increased.
While commitment of faculty to teaching has increased, research remains

323
the predominant preference of faculty in both research and non-research
universities. And though the time devoted to research activities has decreased,
academic productivity, measured by the number of publications, has increased
from 1992 to 2007. Increases in the number and size of research grants and therecognition by many faculty that “A strong record of successful research activity
is important in faculty evaluation at this institution” can be considered asimportant factors.
From the responses on administrative matters, two points become clear.
First, many faculty think that their influence on management activities at an
institutional level has fallen. One result is that more faculty have come to thinkthat “Lack of faculty involvement is a real problem”. Second, educational andresearch activities began to be periodically evaluated in the universities after
1991. A notable innovation is the widespread involvement of students, as well
as deans and heads of departments in evaluation of teaching. Evaluation ofresearch activities is carried out by deans and heads of department.
Finally, with regard to jobs and careers, two points became clear. Despite
the extensive reform of higher education that has been vigorously pursued fromthe beginning of the 1990s, and contrary to prediction, the proportions of faculty
who agree that “If I had it to do over again, I would not become an academic”
and “This is a poor time for any young person to begin an academic career in myfield”, have actually decreased during the past 15 years. It may well be that theeffect of increases in relative earnings and the additional resources provided forboth teaching and research have affected the consciousness of the majority offaculty to a greater extent than the “considerable personal strain” that they
identify.

References
Amano, I. (1984) Daigaku Bunrui no Houhou (Method for the types of universities andcolleges). In K. Tominaga (ed.) Daigaku Hyouka no Kenkyu (Study of university
evaluation). Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
Arimoto, A. (1996).

The academic profession I Japan. In P.G. Altbach (ed.), The

International Academic Profession: Portraits of Fourteen Countries (pp.149-190). The
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Arimoto, A., & Ehara, T. (eds.) (1996). The international comparison of the academic
professions. Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press.
Central Council for Education (2005). A future image of higher education in Japan. Higher

324
Education

Bureau,Highereducation

generalplanning

andpolicydivision.

(http://211.120.54.153/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo0/toushin/05013101.htm)
Daizen, T. (1996). A Comparative Study on the Determinants of Academic Achievements
between USA and Japan-on the field of physics. Human Sciences, 207-237.
Kano, Y. (2007). Female academic profession. In A. Yamanoi (ed). Nippon no Daigaku Kyojyu
Shijyo (Academic Marketplace in Japan) . Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press.
Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture (MESSC) (2000). Japanese Government
Policies in Education, Science, Sports and Culture 1999. Tokyo: Printing Bureau,
Ministry of Finance.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Sciences and Technology (MEXT) (1950-2007).
School basic survey, Tokyo : Printing Bureau, Ministry of Finance.
MEXT (2007). Statistical Survey on Education. Tokyo: Printing Bureau, Ministry of Finance.
Yamanoi, A. (ed.) (2007). Nippon no Daigaku Kyojyu Shijyo (Academic Marketplace inJapan). Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press.

Addendum
Tertiary Educational Institutions in Japan
Universities (Daigaku) are intended to conduct teaching and research indepth in specialized academic disciplines and provide students with advanced
knowledge. Universities require for admission the completion of upper
secondary school or its equivalent, and offer courses of at least four years leading
to a bachelor’s degree (Gakushi). Universities may set up a graduate school
offering advanced studies in a variety of fields leading to masters’ (Shushi) anddoctors’ (Hakushi) degrees. Graduate school courses normally last five years,
consisting of two-year courses leading to a master’s degree and subsequent
three-year courses leading to a doctor’s degree. (It is possible for those who areespecially successful in their studies to get a master’s degree in one year, and adoctor’s degree in two further years.
Junior Colleges (Tanki-daigaku) aim at conducting teaching and research in
specialized subjects and at developing in students such abilities as are requiredfor vocational or practical life. Junior colleges require for admission thecompletion of upper secondary school or its equivalent, and offer two- or threeyear programs in various fields of study, which lead to the title of associate(Jun-gakushi). Most courses offered in these colleges are in fields such as
humanities, social sciences, teacher training and home economics. The great
majority of the students in these colleges are women. Those who have325
completed junior college may go on to university and their credits acquired atjunior college may be counted as part of the credits leading to bachelors’ degrees.
Junior colleges are also allowed to offer advanced courses which may lead tobachelors’ degrees.
Colleges of Technology (Koto-senmon-gakko), unlike universities or juniorcolleges, accept those who have completed lower secondary school, and offer
five-year (five and a half years at colleges of maritime technology) consistent
programs. They were established in 1962, intended to conduct teaching inspecialized subjects in depth and to develop in students such abilities as are
required for vocational life. Students who have completed studies at colleges oftechnology are granted the title of associate (Jyun-gakushi) and may apply foradmission to the upper division of a university. Colleges of Technology are also
allowed to offer two-year advanced courses, which follow the five-year programin order to provide a higher level of technical education.
Courses provided in Specialized Training Colleges may be classified into
three categories: upper secondary, post-secondary and general courses. Eachcourse gives at least 40 students systematic instruction, lasting not less than one
year, for 800 class hours or more per year. Specialized training colleges
offering upper secondary courses are called “upper secondary specialized
training schools (Koto-senshu-gakko)” and those offering post-secondary courses
are called “professional training colleges (Senmon-gakko)”. The former require
for admission the completion of compulsory education, while the latter accept
those who have graduated from the upper secondary schools or upper secondary
courses of specialized training colleges and award the title, “technical associate(Senmonshi)”, to those who complete post-secondary courses that fulfill certain
criteria, including a study period of at least two years. Students who havecompleted an upper secondary course lasting three years or more of specialized
training colleges designated by the Minister are entitled to apply for a university
place.

Latin America327

Brazilian Academic Profession: some recent trends

Elizabeth Balbachevsky∗, Simon Schwartzman∗∗, Nathalia Novaes
Alves∗∗∗, Dante Filipe Felgueiras dos Santos∗∗∗∗ and Tiago Silva
Birkholz Duarte∗∗∗∗∗The 2006 census of Brazilian Higher Education shows a highly disperse anddiversified system. There are 2,270 institutions, of which only 178 areconsidered Universities.1 The public sector is small, with only 10.9% of all
institutions, some under the Federal government (4.6%), others under state(provincial) governments (3.6%), and a few under local municipalities (2.6%).
Federal and state institutions tend to be larger and better institutionalized than theprivate ones: they represent 51.7% of all Brazilian universities and account formost of the country’s graduate education (81.3% of the enrollment at this level).
Municipal institutions, however, are similar to the private ones at the lower end:
they are small colleges, and the teaching staff are not very well qualified and do
not have contracts for full-time employment.
∗

Associate professor, the Department of Political Science, University of São Paulo (USP);
Fellow, the University’s Research Center for Public Policy (NUPPs), Brazil, e-mail:balbasky@usp.br∗∗
President of the Instituto de Estudos do Trabalho e Sociedade (IETS) and former Presidentof The Brazilian Institute of Official Statistics (IBGE), Brazil, e-mail:simon@schwartzman.org.br∗∗∗
Undergraduate student at the Political Science Department – USP and assistant at CAP
project in Brazil∗∗∗∗
Undergraduate student at the Political Science Department – USP and assistant at CAP
project in Brazil∗∗∗∗∗
Undergraduate student at the Political Science Department – USP and assistant at CAP
project in Brazil
1
To be recognized as universities, higher education institutions in Brazil need to fulfill somerequirements that includes at least a third of their academic staff with at least a master’s
degree and full time contracts, besides the provision of some graduate education degree
programs, and teaching in the health, technical and social sciences. There is no legal
difference in the degrees provided by university and non-university institutions, but
universities have more autonomy to open new course programs and to decide the number ofvacancies they offer each year.

328
The private sector is huge: it includes 2,022 institutions and answers for
74.1% of all undergraduate enrollments. Most private institutions – 95.7% – aresmall, family-owned colleges scattered all throughout the country, and enroll
43% of all undergraduate students in the country. The remaining 4.3% are large
institutions, enrolling 31.1% of the undergraduate students. Most private sector
institutions (78.3%) are for-profit, and, as such have no tax benefits, and are notrequired to provide institutional scholarships or philanthropic services. The
remaining 21.7% are formally classified as philanthropic institutions. Most
private universities are old philanthropic institutions. Nevertheless, in the last
decade gigantic universities have grown also in the for-profit sub-sector.
Table 1 provides some relevant figures for the Brazilian higher education
system for 2006. There were 4.7 million undergraduate and 132,500 graduate
students in masters’ and doctorate programs. There were 316,900 teachingposts, a third of which were full-time.2 In federal institutions, 83.4% of theacademic staff have full-time contracts; in state institutions, 73.1%. The pattern
for university and non-university institutions is the same in these sectors. In
municipal institutions, however, only 19% of the academic positions are
full-time.
Only 16% of the academic posts in private institutions are full-time, withdifferences among for-profit and not for-profit, university and non-university
institutions. The figures are 11% in for-profit non-universities; 29.7% in
for-profit universities; 12.7% in philanthropic non-universities; and 23.2% inphilanthropic universities.
Table 1 also shows that 22.3% of all academic positions in Brazilian higher
education are filled by professionals holding doctorates. Academics with suchprofiles are to be found mostly in the public sector, and in federal and state
owned universities within it. In fact, while the public sector offers only 33.7%
of all academic positions, 63.4% of all Brazilian academics holding a doctorate
work in a public institution. In the private sector it is the opposite: it contributes
66.2% of all academic posts, but only 35.8% of the academics holding a PhD.

2

In the 2003 survey, 90% of the academics that declared holding full-time contracts alsodeclared working with only one HE institution. This figure has been confirmed by the2007 survey. Academics with full-time contracts also declare that the income derived bythis academic position represents, on average, 80% of their total monthly income. In the
public sector, a full-time contract requires a small teaching load of between 12 to 16 hours
per week. In the private sector, full-time contracts usually require a teaching load of 20 to
30 hours per week.

329
Table 1. Brazilian Higher Education System: major figures, 2006
Ownership
Federal

State

Local

Type

NumberofInstitutions

Undergraduate

Graduate

Faculty employed

Enrollments

Enrollments

Total

PhD.

Full-time

Universities

53

556,231NA

52,881

26,24344,077

Nonuniv.

52

33,590

NA

5,197

879

4,503

Total

105

589,82166,602

58,07827,122

48,580

Universities

34

436,662NA

37,482

15,951

28,348

NonUniv.

49

45,094

NA

3,525

476

1,665

Total

83

481,756

40,41741,007

16,42730,013

Universities

560,370

NA

3,841

699

1,073

Nonuniv.

55

77,357

NA

4,073

517

428

Total

60

137,727

682

7,914

1,216

1,501

All

Universities

92

1,053,263

NA

94,20442,89373,498Public

NonUniv

156

156,041NA

12,795

1,872

6,596

Total

248

1,209,304

107,701

106,999

44,76580,094For

Universities

24

437,165

NA

17,792

2,691

5,358

Profit

NonUniv.

1,559

1,487,001

NA

100,947

8,442

11,156

Total

1,583

1,924,166

NA

118,739

11,133

16,214

Universities

62

1,019,968

NA

56,485

10,877

13,136

Philantropic

NonUniv.

377

523,208NA

34,659

3,904

4,404

Total

439

1,543,176

NA

91,144

14,71817,540All

Universities

86

1,457,133

NA

74,277

13,56818,494

Private

NonUniv.

1,936

2,010,209

NA

13,5606

12,283

15,260

Total

2,022

3,467,342

24,780209,883

25,85133,754

Universities

178

2,510,396

NA

168,481

56,461

91,992

Total

NonUniv.

2092

2,166,250

NA

148,401

14,15521,.856

Total

2,270

4,676,646

132,481

316,882

70,616

113,848

Sources: For the number of institutions, undergraduate enrollments and faculty, Brazilian
Ministry of Education, Higher Education Census of 2006. For graduate education,
Ministry of Education, CAPES Foundation -http://www.capes.gov.br/sobre/estatisticas/
Notes: Graduate education includes students enrolled in Masters’ of Science, Professional
Masters’ and Doctorate programs.
NA: Not available

Intra-sector institutional differences
The figures presented above are eloquent in showing the striking differencesamong institutions that coexist in Brazilian higher education. In fact, Brazilian
higher education is not only diversified but also sharply stratified, both between

330
and within each sector. In the public sector, the major line of differentiation andhierarchy is the one created by the degree of institutionalization of graduate
education. In the late 1960s, when the Brazilian government started to support
graduate education,3 only a few public institutions were well positioned to takeadvantage of the existing incentives. These institutions created a large numberof graduate programs, and hired academics with PhDs to staff them. The influxof these scholars created a dynamic environment inside these institutions. Witha great number of PhD holders, these institutions were also able to capture theinvestments the Brazilian government was mobilizing for science and technology
in the 1970s. Nowadays, these institutions could be called the “Research public
universities stratum”: they provide a good working environment, which, in turn,allows them to secure the better-qualified academics and attract public financial
support for research. A major feature of these institutions is the great
proportion of PhD holders among their faculty. In some of them more than
90% of all academic staff hold a PhD. These institutions also are distinguishedby the efforts committed to graduate education: in none of them less than 30% of
their students are enrolled in graduate programs, and in some this proportion isabove 50%. These institutions award most of the PhD degrees granted in the
country and in them the academic staff tend to be very influential in matters of
institutional governance.
The other public institutions can be placed in a separate category. Most ofthem hold university status but lack conditions for high-level academic work.
They have not been able to establish a strong graduate layer and thus havedifficulties in attracting and retaining holders of doctorates among their staff.
Bureaucracy and teacher’s unions have greater power than the academic staff,
and central administration also tends to have more scope for initiatives.
Graduate education is a smaller enterprise in these institutions and tends to be
confined to the masters’ level. Nonetheless, these institutions play a relevantrole not only in undergraduate education, but also as a regional source of skills
and knowledge. As such, they may be called “regional public institutions”.
In the private sector there is also a small segment of institutions committed
to graduate education. In the late 1960s some Catholic universities, and moreparticularly the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, also took
advantage of the government initiatives to support graduate education. Thus
they committed efforts to build up a graduate layer, and, with the support of theFederal government, evolved in a pattern very much similar to the one found in3

For an overview of Brazilian graduate education see Balbachevsky, 2004.

331
the federal sector, with generous full-time contracts and support for academic
research and graduate education. In the 1990s, when public subsidies dried up,some of these institutions evolved an active entrepreneurial orientation,
establishing strong links with outside users and clients for their research anddevelopment capabilities. They built up a strong periphery of institutes linking
the competences at the core of the university’s Departments with users outside
the academic world. 4 In the last decade some other private institutions(confessional and non-confessional ones) also experienced some movement
toward a more entrepreneurial orientation – that is, to an awareness and wilinessfor actively exploring alternative fund-raising activities, including services,
graduate professional education and life-long learning programs (as opposed to a
strategy of relying solely on funds raised by tuition fees paid by undergraduate
students). In common, all these institutions have room for engaging a larger
proportion of PhD holders in their staff. For these institutions, academic
credentials are regarded as a source of differentiation, both in the undergraduate
market by attracting students from wealthier families willing to pay for goodeducational standards, and in the services market by offering well-regarded
professional training programs and job-oriented graduate education, as well as
consultancy and advisory activities. These orientations and features set apart asmall group of private institutions that could be called “Elite private institutions”.
They are small in number, but are well known and respected in the Brazilian
higher education’s landscape. From the point of view of upper-middle classfamilies, they represent the only real alternative to the educational services
provided by the public sector.
In the lowest stratum is congregated the great majority of Brazilian higher
education institutions. They are mostly private institutions, or owned by small
municipalities. Most are small colleges or isolated professional schools, but thegroup includes some large, teaching-only institutions that have managed to beaccredited at some point as universities and can have 60,000 or more students.
In common, they all are confined to a kind of commodity-like market of massundergraduate education, where the price charged for education is the most
relevant differential. Lower tuition fees are the goal, and saving in expenses inproviding the undergraduate programs is the best strategy. They may be called“mass-oriented private institutions”.
For these institutions, full-time (or even part-time) contracts and graduate
4

See the case studies of the Catholic University Computer Science sector and the Getúlio
Vargas Foundation Economics centers in Schwartzman et al. (forthcoming).

332
faculty are luxuries they hesitate to incur. When a choice is posed, they usually
opt for hiring non-graduate trained instructors on contracts based on per hour
payments. When they are forced by governmental regulations to hire graduate
academics, they prefer masters’ degree holders, as they have no room for a
strategic use of the competences and prestige associated with the PhD degree.
Some of them, mostly universities, do display some research related
indicators, since “research − or indicators of research” is a bureaucratic demand
from government to all officially recognized universities. Thus all private
universities in Brazil have a few research groups (or graduate, masters’ or
doctoral, programs), if only for the sake of producing the indicators demanded by
the government. But the real difference between these institutions and the elite
private stratum is to be found in the strategic place occupied by theseresearch-related activities. In the “mass-oriented institutions”, research groups
tend to be few, small, chronically undernourished and with few connections to
the institution’s real life. They are not supposed to grow and to occupy a placeof their own inside the institution. They exist only for the sake of the indicators
they produce. In contrast, at “elite private institutions” research, consultancy
and related activities play strategic roles, and the full-time academic staff arestimulated to develop projects and initiatives of different kinds.
Institutions at this lower stratum are not organized in academic departments
and have small room for initiatives from the faculty. They are verticallyorganized, and the smallest organizational unit is the bachelor course program.
Each program is supervised by a coordinator, usually a senior teacher, with longyears at the institution. Their authority derives from the trust of the institution’sowner, rather than academic reputation or leadership.

The 2007 survey on the academic profession in Brazil
The sample design used for the 2007 survey on the academic profession in
Brazil, as part of the International Project on the Changing Academic Profession(CAP Project) incorporates the categories just sketched. The realm of Brazilian
higher education institutions was classified in the four strata identified above:“research public universities”, “regional public institutions”, “elite private
institutions” and “mass private institutions”. The indicators used for classifying
each institution were the proportion of PhD holders in an institution’s faculty andthe proportion of faculty employed on full-time contracts. Thus,

333• Research Public Universities are public institutions where one finds ahigh proportion of PhD holders (50% or more) among faculty and also ahigh proportion of academics with full-time contracts (70% or more).
It happens that all institutions in this stratum are recognized asuniversities.
• Regional Public Institutions are public institutions that have a highproportion of academics with full-time contracts and medium or low
proportions of PhD holders among faculty.
• Elite Private Institutions are private institutions with a high proportionof PhD holders among faculty and at least a significant proportion ofacademics with full-time contracts.
• Mass Private Institutions are private or local owned institutions5 witha low proportion of PhD holders among their faculty and a small
number of full-time contracts.
• To these strata, we added a fifth, for scholars from research institutes, asmall but relevant component of the Brazilian academic enterprise.
Across all the strata, institutions were sorted by size and the larger ones
were weighted in order to avoid over-representation of small institutions in any
one stratum. The institutional sample was randomly chosen inside each stratum.
For each institution in our sample we had access to all academic staff in lists
collected by the Brazilian Ministry of Education. From these lists we sampled
5,000 academics and for each of them, listed all e-mail addresses known, after
consulting the institutions, the Brazilian Directory of Researchers (Plataforma
Lattes), maintained by the Brazilian Council for Research (CNPq – Conselho
Nacional de Pesquisa),6 of the Ministry of Science and Technology and other5

Municipal higher education institutions are officially classified as public, but have noresemblance with other public institutions in Brazil. The most usual origin of suchinstitutions is an agreement between local authorities and a private entrepreneur, where themunicipality offers the buildings while the entrepreneur builds up the institution. As such,they do not have access to public funds or other forms of support, and their faculty do nothave civil servant status; they are maintained by the tuition fees charged to the students.
Through being small and not well-endowed in academic standards, they operate in the same
mass oriented HE market as most of the institutions in the private sector.
6
The Plataforma Lattes is an on-line directory of researchers’ curricula vitae organized by theBrazilian Ministry of Science and Technology. Maintaining up-to-date c.v. in thisDirectory is mandatory for any researchers applying for public support at any level for theirprojects. It is also mandatory for any academic working in graduate programs, both atpublic and private sector, since the advisors’ c.v. constitute part of the evidence analyzed in
the graduate program’s evaluation process.

334
private Internet-based sources like Orkut and MSN services. In spite of allefforts, 298 names of faculty were dropped from our list due to problems inlocating their e-mail addresses or out-dated information. The remaining 4,702
academics were contacted by e-mail on at least three different occasions and at
least once by letter. All doubts expressed by the respondents were addressed by
the team of researchers by e-mail. The fieldwork started in October and was
finalized by the end of December, 2007. At this time, 1,200 academics had
answered all the content of the questionnaire presented to them. A further 300
academics responded only partially to the questionnaire and were excluded fromthe sample. The rate of response is 25.5%, a good rate by international
standards. Much more important, the distribution of responses by stratum
provided a well balanced sample, even if it slightly over-represents the public
sector, as can be seen in Table 2.
Table 2. Brazilian Academic Profession 2007: sample and field research results
by stratum
Planned sample

Stratum

Total

Percentage

Achieved sample
Total

Percentage

Research Institutes

50

5%

49

4.1%

Research Public Universities

150

15%

197

16.4%

Regional Public Institutions

200

20%

296

24.7%

Elite Private Institutions

150

15%

171

14.3%

Mass Private Institutions

450

45%

487

40.6%

The changing academic profession in Brazil: some preliminary
findings
The data collected in 2007 conformed to the pattern of data from two
previous researches on the Brazilian academic profession: a 1992 sample carriedout under the Carnegie initiative, and a 2003 sample, supported by the Ford
Foundation. All samples follow a similar design: the 1992 and 2003 surveys
follow the guidelines proposed by the Carnegie foundation in 1989. They
identify three strata: research universities, regional institutions and massoriented institutions. When the previous surveys were conducted, the numberof elite private institutions was so small that they were included with publicresearch universities in the research universities strata. The 2007 survey
incorporated sector information in the sample design, since from late 1980s to
now the number of private institutions displaying elite orientation has grown and335
become more prominent in Brazilian higher education.

The academic profession in Brazil: a demographic profile
In this section we explore some relevant information on the main variables
regarding the demographic profile of the Brazilian academic profession. Table
3 provides information about the different patterns of appointments according totypes of institution regarding gender.
Table 3. Gender by institutional context, Brazil, 2007
Institutional context

GenderResearch

Regional

Elite

Mass

PublicPublicPrivatePrivateResearch

Total

Institutes

Universities

Institutions

Institutions

Institutions

Male

58.9%

49.3%

61.4%

50.0%

73.5%

female

41.1%

50.7%

38.6%

50.0%

26.5%

46.1%

(197)

(296)

(171)

(484)

(49)

(1,197)

Total (100%)

53.9%

Source: CAP Survey: Brazil
Notes: Chi-Square: 18.4, df: 4 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided): 0.001

Gender participation in the academic profession in Brazil is reasonably wellbalanced. In our sample, 54% of the respondents are men and 46% are women.
Nevertheless, the proportion of men among faculty is higher in research
universities (58.9%), elite private institutions (61.4%) and (73.5%) research
institutes. Gender affects career patterns in elite private institutions and inresearch institutes. In these places, being a man significantly increases theprobability of reaching higher ranks in a career (see Table 4, below). The career
patterns in both private and public institutions are similar. In public institutions,a career starts as a teaching assistant, a position that only requires a bachelor’s
degree. The subsequent position, assistant professor, requires a master’s degree,
and with a doctorate an academic is automatically promoted to associate
professor or adjunto. The highest rank is a full professorship. Access to a full
professorship is usually subject to some negotiations inside the institution, as it is
the only rank with a restricted number of positions. Careers in the private
sector are similar, except that promotion is more difficult than in the public sector.
Since 1990, the first two ranks, teaching assistant and assistant professor, havetended to collapse into one in many institutions (For an overview of the career
patterns among Brazilian higher education see Balbachevsky, 2008).

336
Table 4. Brazil: rank, gender and career by types of institutions
Institutional context
Research Public
Universities
Regional Public
Institutions
Elite Private
Institutions
Mass Private
Institutions

Research Institutes

Total

GenderMean

Number

Std. deviation

Male

1.86

115

0.66

Female

1.84

81

0.56

Total

1.85

196

0.62

Male

1.84

146

0.75

Female

1.83

149

0.83

Total

1.84

295

0.79

Male

1.53

105

0.99

Female

1.42

66

1.02

Total

1.49

171

1.00

Male

1.89

240

1.06

Female

1.90

241

1.03

Total

1.89

481

1.04

Male

2.42

36

0.55

Female

1.77

13

0.93

Total

2.24

49

0.72

Male

1.85

642

0.91

Female

1.81

550

0.93

Total

1.83

1,192

0.92

Source: CAP Brazil, 2007
Notes: Rank scale: 0 = not in the career path; 1= teaching assistant, assistant, assistantprofessor; 2 = associate professor, adjunto; 3 = full professor.

On average, Brazilian academics are 45 years old (standard deviation, 9.5
years). This figure has not changed significantly from 1992 to the present. In
the Carnegie survey of 1992, the average was 43.1 years (standard deviation, 9.1
years). Academics employed in more competitive environments are slightly
older. Thus, the average ages in research universities, elite private institutions
and research Institutes are 47 years, while those employed in regional institutions
and the mass private sector are 42. Again, this is a tendency previously foundin the 1992 survey.
Another relevant trait to be found among academics in Brazil is theimpressive upward movement most of them have experienced in their lives. As
can be seen in Table 5 most Brazilian academics are the first generation in theirfamilies to reach academic education. In fact, only 35.2% of our respondents
have fathers with some higher education. For another 21.2%, the father’s
educational level reported is secondary school while a further 34.2% reported
only primary education. Finally, 9.3% of our respondents are sons and337
daughters from families whose fathers had no formal education at all. Again,
the distribution of these responses is significantly influenced by the type of
institution where the scholar works. In public regional institutions, theproportion of respondents reporting fathers with only primary education was
significantly higher (41.4%) than that of those with fathers who had higher
education (26.1%). In mass private institutions, the proportion of thosereporting fathers with no formal education amounted to 12.3%. On the other
hand, elite private institutions and research institutes show a more selective
pattern of recruitment: in both types of institutions, the proportions ofrespondents from families whose fathers attended higher education increased
significantly: to 53.2% among academics from elite private institutions and to
54.2% among academics from research institutes. At the same time, in bothcontexts, reports of academics’ fathers with less than secondary education
decreased.
Table 5. Father’s highest educational level by institutional context
Research
PublicUniversities
Father’s
highesteducationallevel

Institutional context
Regional
Elite
Mass
PublicPrivatePrivateInstitutions Institutions Institutions

Research
Institutes

Total

Without
formaleducation
Primary
education

6.6%
-1.5

10.5%
0.8

2.3%
-3.4

12.3%
2.9

8.3%
-0.2

9.3%

30.5%
1.2

41.4%
3.0

24.6%
-2.9

37.4%
1.9

8.3%
-3.9

34.2%

Secondaryeducation

25.4%
1.6

22.0%
0.4

19.9%
0.5

18.7%
-1.8

29.2%
1.4

21.2%

Highereducation

37.6%
0.8

26.1%
-3.8

53.2%
5.3

31.6%
-2.2

54.2%
2.8

35.2%

(48)

(1,198)

Total (100%)

(197)

(295)

(171)

(487)

Source: CAP Brazil, 2007
Notes: Pearson Chi-Square: 70,76, 12 df, Asymp. Sig. (2-sided): 0.000.
The numbers bellow each cell are the standardized adjusted residuals.

In short, one can say that the elite and more competitive institutions tend toselect their staff from among people coming from better-educated families.
This is particularly true in the research institutes, where the academic staff tend
to be older, predominantly male and from upper-middle class origins, in contrast
to the younger, more balanced in gender and more modest social origins of theacademic staff employed at other higher education institutions.

338

Working conditions and academic commitment
As was noted above, stable full-time contracts are the rule in the public
sector – both in research oriented and public regional institutions. In elite
private institutions, 50% of the staff reported full-time contracts, although theyreported no stability, since this condition is not envisioned in the labor legislation
regulating work contracts in the private sector. Faculty from mass private
institutions have more precarious academic contracts, with 78% reporting only
part-time or hourly paid, non-stable contracts. Among scholars from research
universities, 82% reported that the university from which they responded wastheir only place of work. Among faculty employed by research institutes, 75%
gave similar responses. Among academics from other public institutions, thisfigure drops to 69% and to 50% among academics from elite private institutions.
Among academics employed in mass private institutions, only 34% reported
having worked in just one institution.
Perhaps the most relevant change in the academic labor market in Brazil isthe relative importance of the academic degree for access to an academic position.
Brazil, like many other emerging countries around the world, has been plaguedby shortcomings derived from a small pool of academically competentcandidates from which to recruit faculty for its higher education institutions.
The number of professionals holding doctoral degrees has been always low.
Nevertheless, the last decade has witnessed relevant changes in this dimension.
Table 6. The academic cohort and graduate experience
Time in years elapsed between the first graduate degree and the first academic
position. Negative values indicate that academic career began prior to achieving thefirst academic degree.
Academic cohort
Before 1990s
1990s

Mean

Number
-4.52
0.25

Std. Deviation

420
452

7.52
5.26

2000s

2.48

271

4.44

Total

-0.98

1143

6.66

ANOVA Table

Between groups
Within groups
Total

Sum ofSquaresdf9185.713
41492.649
50678.362

2
1140
1142

Source: CAP Brazil, 2007

Mean Square4592.857
36.397

F
126.188

sig
0.000

339
These macro-tendencies have been captured by the successive surveys of
the Brazilian academic profession. From 1992 until the present, the proportionof PhD holders increased in all types of institutions. In research-oriented andelite private institutions the proportion increased from 63% in 1992 to 90% in
2007; in regional public institutions, from 25% in 1992 to 65% in 2007; in massprivate institutions, from 10% in 1992 to 32% in 2007. The data collected by
the 2007 survey also show new dynamics inside the academic market in Brazil,
as highlighted in table 6.
Splitting the 2007 sample into cohorts defined by the year when respondents
started their first academic contracts, it is possible to see that those who started
their careers before the 1990s achieved first graduate degrees,7 on average, 4years after their first academic appointment. By the 1990s, scholars had
achieved their first academic appointments in the same year they finished theirfirst graduate degrees. Finally, academics entering the academic market in the
2000s achieved their first post graduate degrees on average 2.5 years before theirfirst academic appointment.
Table 7. Highest academic degree by type of institution

highestacademic
degreePhD

Research
PublicUniversities
92.4%
11.0

Institutional context
Regional
Elite
Mass
PublicPrivatePrivateInstitutions Institutions Institutions
63.5%
75.5%
29.6%
2.6
4.4
-15.9

Research
Institutes

Total

93.9%
5.3

9.3%

Master’s
degree

7.6%
-8.1

29.7%
-1.1

22.2%
-3.1

50.1%
10.9

6.1%
-4.0

34.2%

No
graduate
degree

0%
-5.3

6.8%
-2.5

5.3%
-2.5

20.3%
9.0

0%
-2.5

21.2%

Total (100%)

(197)

(296)

(171)

(487)

(49)

(1,200)Source: CAP Brazil, 2007
Notes: Pearson Chi-Square: 307,7, d.f: 8, asymp. Sig. (2-sided): 0.000

The figures reported here show that the academic market in Brazil is
7This figure takes into account all graduate degrees as well as masters’ and doctoral degrees.
This includes a peculiar graduate degree recognized by the Brazilian legislation, known as“specialization”. These are short term training programs lasting for one year or 350
class-hours, aiming to provide specialized professional training in selected fields and/or
skills.

340
increasingly competitive regarding academic credentials. This tendency isobserved in all sectors and all kind of institutions. Nevertheless, the academic
market in Brazil has not lost its main trait, which is segmentation. As Table 7
shows, different types of institutions tend to appoint academic staff with diverse
academic profiles. While access to academic positions in research oriented
institutions – research universities and research institutes – nowadays requires adoctorate, undergraduate oriented institutions, such as public regional institutions
and mass private institutions are less selective, opening places for faculty withlower academic profiles.
50000
45000
40000
non-graduate
degree

35000
30000

master’s
masters' degree
degree

25000
20000

PhD holders

15000
10000
5000
0
1994

1998

2002

2006

Source: Ministry of Education, INEP, Census of Brazilian Higher Education, 1994-2006

Figure 1. Number of public sector academic positions by degree in Brazil

120000100000non-graduate
degree80000

masters' degree
degreemaster’s

60000
PhD holders
40000
20000
0
1994

1998

2002

2006

Source: Ministry of Education, INEP, Census of Brazilian Higher Education, 1994-2006

Figure 2. Number of private sector academic positions by degree in Brazil

341
These observations are corroborated by the tendencies observed in theaggregate official data collected annually by the Brazilian Ministry of Education
by means of the Brazil’s Census of Higher Education. Relevant data are shownin Figures 1 and 2.
Figure 1 shows the relevant and sharp increase in the participation of PhD
holders in the public sector as a whole since the early 1990s. While theproportion of masters also increased, the increment, in this case, is much lessevident. Figure 2, on the other hand, shows that in the private sector as a whole,
the more evident increase is in the number of academics holding masters’ degrees,
even though positions filled by PhD holders also experienced a significant
increase.
Together, these tendencies create sharp contrasts inside the academic market
in Brazil. In our sample, 42% of the scholars who achieved PhD degrees wereunable to secure stable, full-time contracts. Without full-time contracts, PhD
degree holders also tend to have diminished opportunities for access to publicfunds for research. Thus, while reporting strong interest and commitment toresearch, a significant number of Brazilian scholars with PhD degrees also
reported having no access to external research funding (40%). Considering thatmost of these scholars attended tuition-free doctorate programs offered by thebest research oriented public universities, with most of them supported bypublicly funded fellowships, the above figure suggests a significant waste of
scarce public money.
In contrast, 30% of academics with only masters’ or lower degrees reported
stable, full-time contracts in public institutions. While lacking basic academic
resources to reach a fully fledged role as independent scholars, these respondents
have access to good job conditions provided by the standard terms of contract
offered in the public sector. They have small teaching loads, stability, and wide
room for self-regulated working time. It comes as no surprise that most of theacademic staff with masters’ degrees or lower (60%), employed with full-time
contracts at public institutions in our sample, also declare that they have otherjobs outside their main academic appointments.

International dimension of the Brazilian academic life
Brazilian higher education is a highly closed market: of all the scholars inour sample, 98% are Brazilian-born citizens. Brazilian doctors (85%) haveachieved their PhDs in Brazil: 80% in public research universities, 88% in public
regional institutions, and 90% in mass private institutions. This is reflected in342
the low percentage of Brazilian academics that, in the last three years, have givenclasses in languages other than Portuguese (6%).
However, contacts and interaction with the external world increased verysignificantly in the last two decades. In 1992, only 9.2% of the Brazilian
sample reported any collaboration with foreign colleagues. In 2007, this figure
was 22%. As might be expected, the volume of international collaboration
increased more in research-oriented environments, as can be seen in Table 8.
In fact, among scholars in research public universities, the proportion ofscholars reporting collaboration with colleagues abroad is 37.6% and, at the
research institutes, it reaches 65.3%; in mass private institutions this figure drops
to only 9%.
Table 8. International collaboration by institutional context

International
research
collaboration(last 3 years)

yesnoTotal (100%)

Research
PublicUniversities
37.6%
5.8
62.4%
-5.8
(197)

Institutional context
Regional
Elite
Mass
PublicPrivatePrivateInstitutions Institutions Institutions
22.0%
27.5%
9.0%
0.1
1.9
-8.9
78.0%
72.5%
91.0%
-0.1
-1.9
8.9
(296)
(171)
(487)

Research
Institutes

Total

65.3%
7.5
34.7%
-7.5
(49)

53.9%
46.1%
(1,200)Source: Brazil CAP survey, 2007
Notes: Pearson Chi-Square 132.77, d.f.: 4, Asymp. Sig. (2-sided): 0.000

Table 9. Proportion of respondents who published work abroad, by type of
institution
Institutional context

Proportion

abroadTotal (100%)

Regional

Elite

Mass

PublicPublicPrivatePrivateResearch

Universities

Institutions

Institutions

Institutions

61.4%

27.7%

36.3%

12.1%

10.3

-1.2

1.8

-11.4

8.3

none

38.6%

72.3%

63.7%

87.9%

16.3%

-10.3

1.2

-1.8

11.4

-8.3

(197)

(296)

(171)

(487)

Source: Brazil CAP survey, 2007.
Notes: Pearson Chi-Square: 236.0 df. 4, Asymp. Sig. (2-sided): 0.000

Total

Institutes

someof work
published

Research

83.7%

(49)

30.4%
69.6%
(1,200)343
Another relevant change in this dimension is related to the proportion ofBrazilian scholars publishing their works abroad. In 1992, only 17% of
Brazilian academics reported having published abroad in the three years prior to
the survey. In 2007, this figure increased to 30%, as shown in Table 9.
These figures are consistent with the international data from the Science
Citation Index, which registers sharp increases in the participation of Brazilian
researchers in internationally indexed publications since the late 1990s. So,even with the Brazilian academic market being largely closed to international
academic migration, and with Brazilian graduate education lagging behind ininternationalization, the intensity of international exposure of the Brazilian
academic community has increased remarkably in the last decade. Still, thesedata give no clues about the quality and impact of this increased participation orof the international networking of Brazilian academic community.

Conclusions
The last 15 years has witnessed important changes in the Brazilian academic
market. Some relevant traits highlighted in this analysis are as follows.
Regarding the relationship between graduate education and academic
recruitment, it can be said that it has matured, in the sense that now
graduate studies are, for many academics, perceived as a pre-requisite forbeing accepted as academic staff.
Nevertheless, there is a remarkable incongruence between the stronger
exigencies and the working conditions faced by academics. A relevant
proportion of PhD holders reported poor conditions of employment andsuffer restricted access to support for research.
In spite of stronger links with the international academic community, theacademic market is still closed and internally-oriented. It recruits
mostly Brazilian academics and is mainly oriented toward Brazilian
students.

References
Balbachevsky, E. (2004). Graduate Education: emerging challenges to a successful policy. In C.
Brock, & S. Schwartzman (eds.), The Challenges of Education in Brazil (pp.209-228).
Oxford: symposium Books.

344
Balbachevsky, E. (2008). Academic Careers in Brazil: The Legacy of the Past. Paper acceptedfor publication in Journal of the Professoriate.
Brazilian

Ministryof

Education:

MEC/CAPES

Estatísticasda

Pós-Graduação.

http://www.capes.gov.br/sobre/estatisticas/
Brazilian Ministry of Education: MEC/INEP Sinopse do Censo do Ensino Superior, ano de2006. http://www.inep.gov.br/superior/censosuperior/sinopse/
Clark, B.R. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities. Oxford: IAU Press and Pergamon
Press.
Schwartzman, S., Botelho, A.J., da Silva, A., & Cristophe, M. (forthcomig). Brazil. In S.
Schwartzman (ed.), University and Development in Latin America: Successful
Experiences of Research Centers. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

345

Mexican Academics at the Turn of the Twenty-First
Century: who are they and how do they perceive
their work, institutions and public policies(a preliminary analysis)

Jesús Francisco Galaz-Fontes1, Laura Elena Padilla-González2,
Manuel Gil-Antón3, Juan José Sevilla-García4, José Luis Arcos-Vega5,
Jorge Martínez-Stack6, Sergio Martínez-Romo7,
Gabriel Arturo Sánchez-de-Aparicio-y-Benítez8,
Leonardo Jiménez-Loza9 and María Elena Barrera-Bustillos10

In 1992 Mexican faculty were surveyed within the International Survey ofthe Academic Profession implemented by the Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching (Gil-Antón, 1996). Together with the study on theTraits of Diversity (Gil-Antón et al., 1994), this survey constitutes an essentialreference point in assessing the evolution of the academic profession in México.
1

Professor, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California,
México, e-mail:galazfontes@gmail.com
2
Professor, Departamento de Educación, Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes, México,
e-mail: lepadill@correo.uaa.mx
3
Professor, Departamento de Sociología, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana Iztapalapa,
México, e-mail: maga@correo.azc.uam.mx
4Professor, Instituto de Ingeniería, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, México,
e-mail: jcjast@gmail.com
5
Professor, Instituto de Ingeniería, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, México,
e-mail: arcos@uabc.mx
6
Professor, Seminario de Educación Superior, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,
e-mail: jorgestack@gmail.com
7
Professor, Departamento de Política y Cultura, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana
Xochimilco, México, e-mail: sergio48@correo.xoc.uam.mx
8Professor, Departamento de Estudios en Educación, Universidad de Guadalajara, México,
e-mail: margabis@cencar.udg.mx
9Professor, Departamento de Educación, Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes, México,
e-mail: leonardo.jimenezloza@gmail.com
10
Professor, Facultad de Educación, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, México, e-mail:bbustil@uady.mx

346
Since then, a series of studies on academics has been carried out that has shapeda specific area of research within higher education (García Salord, Grediaga Kuri,
Landesmann Segall & Padilla González, 2003).
By the time the two identified surveys were carried out, Mexican higher
education had been for almost two decades in a very intense period of growth
and transformation. While in 1960 there were 50 higher education institutions(HEI) with approximately 10,000 faculty in total and only 300 (3%) full-time
faculty working in them, by the early 1990’s there were approximately 31,000(27%) ft faculty employed, out of a total of around 114,000 positions located in
372 HEI. 11 More importantly, however, the rules by which the Federal
Government funded higher education had changed from a benevolent to an
evaluative perspective (Martínez Romo, 2006).
Fifteen years after the Carnegie survey, a new appraisal of the academic
profession has been underway during the last three years under the international
project of the Changing Academic Profession (CAP), initially promoted byWilliam K. Cummings. Since the early 90’s, higher education has been subject
to intense external processes that have affected academics and the work they do:higher expectations of relevance, internationalization and a new management
perspective are salient dimensions that have changed and whose influence in theacademic profession need to be assessed. The following report describes ananalysis of the preliminary data from the Mexican faculty surveyed, but before
going into it we will make some comments on the context in which the academic
profession in Mexico has developed.
Growth during the last 50 years has been overwhelming: between 1960 and2006 faculty has increased from about 10,000 to 260,000, which implies anincrement of a quarter of a million of new academic positions in the country as awhole. But maybe the most relevant aspect has been not so much growth, butrather a change in the perception held by governmental and institutional
authorities regarding academics. In general, before 1990 there was practicallyno knowledge whatsoever about the academic profession, the central actor ofuniversity activity. The studies mentioned earlier were initial and showed that,beyond contract types and teaching load figures (information necessary foradministrative service), faculty were social subjects: persons with career
trajectories, disciplinary variation and different levels of job satisfaction. They
11

In appreciating this small number of HEI it should be recognized that the notion of what
constitutes a single institution has changed since that time. Notwithstanding such a situation,
the number of HEI by the early 1990’s was relatively small.

347
varied in the ways in which, by type of institution, they confront, each day more
extensively, academic life as a profession and not merely as a complement toexternal professional activities. In addition to changes in the perspective of theauthorities, those studies helped to shape a specific area of study in the context ofthe field of higher education. In other words, there was a transition from thenotion of teachers/professors, to that of academics, and the way things arelabeled is not trivial.
Looking back to the 17 years that separates us from the early 1990’s, there
is no doubt that at least one of the axes of the evaluation policies of the Mexican
government towards HEI rested in programs targeted at academics, under theassumption, not entirely unrealistic but perhaps incomplete, that Mexican HEI
would be as strong and creative as its academics. By the middle of the crisis of
the 80’s – between 1982 and 1990 purchasing power decreased by about 60% –the National Researchers System was created with the purpose, at least partially,of allowing faculty associated with research to recover their purchasing capacity,
their standard of living. Already in the 90’s, a wider program for income
recovery had begun: there were no generalized salary increments common in thepast, but rather additional payments based on output evaluation – merit pay – thatwere intended not only to remedy the income decrement but also modeled
another type of an academic career. In this process the Program for the
Improvement of the Professoriate (PROMEP, Programa para el Mejoramientodel Profesorado) was created, with the goals of strengthening the academic
training of professors in service by means of graduate scholarships, an increasein the number of full-time appointments and, afterwards, by supporting thestrengthening collegial spaces for faculty development.
In short, the tendency was for transition from a faculty body composed
basically of part-time faculty, to one with a significant proportion of full-timers;from one with a licentiate degree at the most, to one with graduate studies,preferably a doctorate; and from one composed of isolated individuals, to one
with an intense collegial life.
How much of the above was accomplished as planned? The evaluation of
17 years with these type of policies is a task in progress, but what we can assert
without doubt is that during these years the working conditions for doing
academic work have changed considerably when compared to those reported in
the pioneer studies.
It is therefore highly important to analyze thereconfiguration of the academic profession in the country.
Does thefeminization trend continue? Is the age of academics a serious problem that iscreating a pension crisis that puts HEI in danger? Are new academics, pioneers

348
in their families, entering higher education, or has the numbers of heirs in theacademic profession gone up? What have been the consequences of themerit-pay systems, which have become a crucial strategy for the transformationof academic relations in terms of preferences for university tasks, the perceptionof the purpose of higher education, the internationalization level of the faculty
and their working conditions, as well as job satisfaction in general or that related
to specific facets of the work performed by academics?
The following is a preliminary analysis of the results of the CAP Mexican
Study. Although it is of paramount importance to compare our results withthose of the past and with those of other countries, trying to identify expected
and non-expected trends, in this report such comparisons will be few. For now
we will concentrate on a brief description of the results of the current study,leaving for a future report comparisons of the type described.

Method12Given the magnitude of the tasks needed in order to implement the CAP
survey in Mexico it was decided from the outset that a collaborative network ofscholars interested in the academic profession was needed. So, 97 colleagues
from 36 HEI located in all regions of the country are currently participating in
the Network of Researchers on Academics. The Network translated, adaptedand piloted the international questionnaire to make it relevant to our national
context. Additionally, the Network helped to define the criteria under which,and in the context of CAP recommendations, the faculty sample was obtained;
and, finally, our colleagues obtained, with the help of the National Association of
Universities and Higher Education Institutions (ANUIES), institutional faculty
lists and applied the questionnaires of the survey. The Network leading grouphas been, on the other hand, in charge of inputting the data from the recovered
questionnaires.
Following the practice used in higher education systems where there is nocentral and comprehensive list of academics, a two-stage sampling procedure
was used to generate the faculty sample to be surveyed. The information used
to this end was that of the 2005 Format 911,13 which was complemented by12

Due to space limitations the methods section has been reduced to a minimum. Once thesurvey application is finished a detailed methodological note will be elaborated.
13
Format 911 is a set of mandatory annually collected questionnaires that is jointly managed
by the Secretariat of Public Education and the National Association of Universities andHigher Education Institutions.

349
information provided by the National Council of Science and Technology, as
well as by a small number of institutions for which data were inconsistent in the2005 Format 911.
In defining the scope of our study, an analysis of the 2005 Format 911
identified 2,029 HEI and 255,274 faculty positions associated with thoseinstitutions, of which there were 93,009 full- and part-time faculty working inthem with at least a 20 hours per week contract (half-time). HEI wereorganized in seven strata and, given the purpose of the international project,teacher education and two-year institutions were singled-out and put aside,
leaving 1,454 HEI aggregated in five strata, with 81,913 faculty members
working in them. Finally, HEI with less than 20 faculty members meeting thecriteria for being included in the scope of the study were not considered, and in
this way 379 HEI and 79,389 FT and HT faculty members constituted the final
institutional and faculty fields for the study (Table 1).14
Table 1. Institutional and faculty fields for the Mexican Survey of the
Changing Academic Profession International Study, 2007
Type of institution

Research Centers

4-years and graduate HEI

4-years and graduate HEI with atleast 20 FT/HT faculty

Institutions

Faculty

Institutions

Faculty

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

35

2.4

4246

5.2

34

8.8

4229

5.3

Federal Public Institutions

28

1.9

19196

23.4

14

3.7

19102

24.1

State Public Institutions

108

7.4

31273

38.2

53

14.0

31062

39.1

Technological Public Institutions

224

15.4

12955

15.8

136

35.9

12666

16.0

Private Institutions

1059

72.8

14243

17.4

142

37.5

12330

15.5

Total

1454

81913

379

79389

In the context of the institutional and faculty system just described, and inproportion to the number of faculty working in each stratum, a sample of 101
HEI was drawn in the first stage of the two-stage sampling design. Faculty lists
were then obtained directly from each sampled institution and a total faculty
sample of 2,826 academics was generated, which was then asked, by Network
members or trained interviewers, to answer a printed or electronic version of thestudy questionnaire.
Although by December 21st we had recovered 1,050 instruments, this report
14

Of the faculty universe identified, approximately 79% and 21% were, respectively, full- andhalf-time.

350
presents the data from the 826 questionnaires that correspond to full-time faculty
working in 49 HEI (Table 2). Because we still need to increase the total faculty
response rate thus far obtained (36.7%), as well as the number of HEI
represented in the sample (48.5%), the following analysis should be considered
as only preliminary. 15 Additionally, and as can be observed, faculty fromresearch centers, federal public institutions and technological public institutions
are under-represented, while those who work in state public institutions areover-represented. Given the nature of this report no weighting has been used tobalance such situations, which again contributes to its preliminary nature.
Notwithstanding the above qualifications, the report represents a first cut of theinformation generated by the CAP International Study.
Table 2. Institutional and Faculty sample for the Mexican Survey of the
Changing Academic Profession International Study, 2007
Type of institution

Research Centers
Federal Public
Institutions
State Public
Institutions
Technological Public
Institutions
Private Institutions

Response sample, at Dec.
Field of 4-year andTarget sample of 4-year
2007, of 4-year andgraduate HEI with at least and graduate HEI with atgraduate HEI with at least
20 FT/HT faculty
least 20 FT/HT faculty
20 FT/HT faculty
Institutions

Faculty

Institutions

Faculty

Institutions

Faculty

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

34

8.8

4229

5.3

6

5.8

143

5.1

2

4.1

11

1.0

14

3.7 19102 24.1

14

13.8

710

25.1

5

10.2

191

18.2

53

14.0 31062 39.1

45

44.8

1101

38.9

28

57.1

582

55.4

136

35.9 12666 16.0

18

17.8

432

15.3

7

14.3

111

10.6

142

37.5 12330 15.5

18

17.8

439

15.5

7

14.3

155

14.8

379

79389

101

2826

49

1050

The original questionnaire was generated collectively by members of the
CAP International Study, following in several critical aspects the items used by
the 1992 Carnegie survey and, very importantly, assuring that the instrument
covered three main themes: relevance, internationalization and managerialism.
More specifically, questionnaire items were organized in six sections: career andprofessional situation, general work situation and activities, teaching, research,
management, and personal background and professional preparation. As said
15

Questionnaire recovery is currently underway and we expect to end it in the last week ofFebruary, 2008. Our goal is to achieve an overall response rate of 60%.

351
earlier, the international instrument was adapted and piloted by members of the
Network who, in addition to sharing intense Internet communication, met threetimes during a 10-month period. The final version of the questionnaire also
contained several items jointly generated with colleagues from Canada and theUnited States.

Some Results and Preliminary Analysis
After fifteen years the question of who the full-time faculty are is still
central. Table 3 presents some of the pertinent information currently available
from the Mexican CAP Survey. As it can be observed, one-third of the faculty
are women (33.5%), and the mean age of faculty is 48.1 years. In the 1992
Carnegie survey the corresponding figures were 30.7% and 40.1 years.16 While
only 22.1 and 9.0% of respondents reported that, respectively, their father andmother had some higher education experience at the level of a 4-year degree orhigher, 70.2% reported that such was the case for their spouse or significant
other companion, which speaks of tremendous social mobility dynamics for
those entering the academic profession. Nationality at birth speaks of an
academic body largely Mexican.
Table 3 also shows that the highest degree of almost 80% of ft faculty issome form of graduate work, with nearly 28% declaring a doctoral or
post-doctoral award. At the same time, only a minority of ft faculty has
experience outside the higher education sector, as only 22.3% of the survey
respondents declare having at least one year of full-time experience in the public
sector, and only 18.4% in the private sector, while 13.4% said the same withrespect to doing independent work. In addition to reporting work experience
mostly in the educational sector, respondents manifested little varied experiencein higher education, as 76.3% reported that they have worked only in 1 or 2 HEI.
Another most relevant aspect for understanding the academic profession isrelated to the way faculty see their work and the activities that they engage in(Table 4). More specifically, while 57.5% of respondents declare that they
prefer teaching over research, 42.5% reported an academic preference of
research over teaching. However, preference for mainly teaching almost tripled
preference for mainly research (17.6 vs. 6.0%). Thinking in terms of Boyer’s
notion of scholarship (1990), Table 4 speaks of Mexican faculty reporting a16This and other 1992 Carnegie figures were generated on the basis of the original databaseprovided by Manuel Gil-Antón.

352
notion of academic work that includes, collectively, the elements of all of its fourtypes (teaching, discovery, integration and application). It is quite interesting,additionally, to observe that application is the form of scholarship most often
accepted as part of academic work (87.8%), followed by teaching (70.2%),
integration (67.8%) and finally by research (57.8%). As it is well known,
Mexican higher education has historically been associated with the training ofprofessionals: in this context, application could be the form of scholarship withwhich faculty are more familiar and most comfortable.
Table 3. Personal information of respondents to the 2007 Mexican Survey of
the Changing Academic Profession International Study (Nt = 826
full-time)
Demographic Aspect
Value
Women (99.2)*
33.5%
Mean age (98.4)
48.1 years
Standard Deviation of age (98.4)
9.5 years
4-Yr University Educational Attainment of father (93.6)
22.1%
4-Yr University Educational Attainment of Mother (95.6)
9.0%
4-Yr University Educational Attainment of Spouse/SO (75.9)
70.2%
Mexican nationality at birth (98.3)
95.7%
Highest degree of faculty surveyed (96.4)
Less than B.A., B.S.
0.5%
B.A., B.S.
20.7%
Specialty
4.5%
Masters46.5%
Doctorate
25.0%
Post-doctorate
2.8%
At least 1 year of full-time experience in various labor sectors since attainment of first degree (100)Higher education institutions
89.2%
Research centers
12.6%
Public sector
22.3%
Not for-profit organizations
2.5%
Private sector
18.4%
Independent work
13.4%
Experience in 1-to-2 higher education institutions (100)76.3%* Numbers in parenthesis are the percentages of valid responses with respect to Nt = 826.

An interesting result in the context of previous findings is the extent towhich academic work, although not necessarily at the same institution, has now
become the major source of income for Mexican ft faculty. Almost three of
every four faculty (72.4%) reported that their income from their academic
activities represented the vast majority of their income (90% - 100% of it), while
only 14.7% indicated that such income was about half or less of their income

353(Table 4). In the 1992 Traits survey the corresponding figures were,respectively, 60.5 and 22.8%.17
Finally, Table 4 shows that 87.7% of the respondents to the survey reported
a high or very high level of general job satisfaction, a figure close to the 83.9%
reported by ft faculty working in a public state university towards the end of the
1990s (Galaz-Fontes, 2002). In agreement with this result, only 8.0% agreed orstrongly agreed that they would not become an academic if they had to do it
again.
Table 4. Perception of various aspects of academic work of respondents to the2007 Mexican Survey of the Changing Academic Profession
International Study (Nt = 826)
Faculty academic preference (percentages) (97.5)*
Mainly in teaching
In both, but leaning to teaching
In both, but leaning to research
Mainly in research

17.6%
39.9%
36.5%
6.0%

Faculty agreeing or strongly agreeing that
academic work is best defined as teaching and tutoring students (98.3)
70.2%
academic work is best defined as doing and reporting original research (97.9)
57.8%
academic work is best defined as including application of academic knowledge in real-life
87.8%
settings (98.2)
academic work is best defined as including integrating main results and trends in one’ field
67.8%(97.3)
teaching and research are hardly compatible (99.3)
10.9%
Faculty’s appraisal of their academic income in relation to all of their income (98.4)
All income (90% - 100%)
72.4%
More than half of your income (60% - 89%)
12.8%
About half of your income (40% - 59%)
7.0%
A minor complement of your income
5.5%
An insignificant part of your income (0% - 9%)
2.2%
Faculty job satisfaction
Faculty reporting a high or very high job satisfaction in general (99.0)
87.7%
Faculty agreeing or strongly agreeing that if they had to do it again they wouldn’t be an
8.0%
academic (98.3)* Numbers in parenthesis are the percentages of valid responses with respect to Nt = 826.

Moving away from preferences into more factual considerations, Table 5shows that the vast majority of faculty see themselves as mainly devoted toteaching undergraduates, as 80.3% of the respondents consider such activity as
the primary or secondary function in importance within their work. Whereas
graduate teaching is only primary or secondary in importance for 20.9% of the17This and other 1992 Traits figures were generated on the basis of the original databaseprovided by Manuel Gil-Antón.

354
survey respondents, something that speaks of the structure of the Mexican higher
education system. Research is a primary or secondary responsibility for 39.3%,
while 26.3% reported the same for administration. Extension and external
partnerships were only reported to be of primary or secondary importance intheir work by 8.1 and 7.7% of the faculty.
Table 5. Information regarding various aspects of the work carried out by
respondents to the 2007 Mexican Survey of the Changing Academic
Profession International Study (Nt = 826)
Faculty stating that each function is their first or second in importance (100)*
Undergraduate teaching
80.3%
Graduate teaching
20.9%
Research
39.3%
Extension
8.1%
External partnerships
7.7%
Administration
26.3%
Mean number of hours involved in different activities as reported by faculty (85.4)
Teaching
13.1
Teaching-support activities
9.4
Research
8.9
Non-paid services
0.9
Paid services
0.9
Collegial activities
2.6
Administration
6.1
Professional development
2.4
Union activities
0.2
Other activities
1.7
Research issues
Faculty reporting doing research (97.7)
66.2%
Faculty with international collaboration (63.4)
28.8%
Of those reporting international collaboration, faculty reporting work with colleagues from various
countries (18.3)
Spain
41.1%
United States
33.1%
Argentina
15.2%
France10.6%
Canada9.3%
United Kingdom
5.3%* Numbers in parenthesis are the percentages of valid responses with respect to Nt = 826.

Table 5 also presents the way in which faculty respondents to the survey
allocate their time in various types of activities. Faculty reported an average of
13.1 hours per week devoted to teaching, 9.4 hours to teaching-support activities,
8.9 hours to research, 6.1 hours to administrative activities, 2.6 and 2.4 hours tocollegial activities and professional development and, finally, less than 2 hours
per week in each case to service, union and other activities. In total, faculty

355
reported that they work, as a group, approximately 46.2 hours per week on
average.
While 39.3% of the respondents reported that research was their primary or
secondary function in importance, 66.2% of the faculty responding to the survey
reported that they carry out research activities and, largely within that group,
28.8% indicated that they are involved in some sort of international collaboration.
Of these, in turn, 41.1% reported that they collaborate with colleagues from
Spain, 33.1% with colleagues from the United States, 15.2% with colleagues
from Argentina, 10.6% with colleagues from France, 9.3% with colleagues from
Canada and, finally, 5.3% with colleagues from the United Kingdom (Table 5).
Table 6. Information regarding the perception of the working conditions ofrespondents to the 2007 Mexican Survey of the Changing Academic
Profession International Study
Faculty rating good or excellent each of the following facilities
Classroom (98.2)
42.8%
Teaching technology (98.7)
41.6%
Laboratories (85.4)
35.4%
Research equipment and instruments (88.5)
28.2%
Computer facilities (98.7)
46.1%
Library holdings and services (98.7)
43.5%
Cubicles and faculty offices (98.8)
41.0%
Telecommunications (internet, networks, phones) (97.6)
46.2%
Faculty rating good or excellent each of the following support staff
Secretarial support (96.1)
32.8%
Teaching support staff (91.7)
22.6%
Research support staff (84.9)
15.1%
Financial support: Faculty rating good or excellent each of the following financial support
Teaching financial support (88.0)
17.8%
Research financial support (83.9)
10.3%
Faculty rating good or excellent institutional support for each of the following developments
National academic mobility (85.8)
19.3%
International academic mobility (82.3)
16.9%
University-society linkages (82.8)
15.2%
Faculty stating that working conditions have improved somewhat or a lot inhigher education institutions (96.0)
45.3%
research centers part of HEI (80.4)
44.7%
independent research centers (75.9)
44.5%
1
Numbers in parenthesis are the percentages of valid responses with respect to Nt = 826.

Table 6 presents the way in which faculty that answered the CAP
questionnaire perceive various working conditions. In relation to infrastructure
between 40% and 50% of the respondents see the majority of aspects considered(cubicles and faculty offices, teaching technology, classrooms, library holdings

356
and services, computer facilities, and telecommunications) as good or excellent,
while less than 40% consider laboratories and research equipment andinstruments at that level.
In relation to various supports for academic work, the perception of
respondents is generally low. Such is the case of support staff (32.8, 22.6 and15.1% see, respectively, support from secretarial, teaching and research staff as
good or excellent), financial support for either teaching or research (17.8 and10.3%, respectively), and specific support for national and international mobility(19.3 and 16.9%), as well as for promoting university-society linkages (15.2%;
see Table 6). Nevertheless, between 44.5% and 45.3% of faculty respondents
to the survey considered that, compared to when they began their academic
careers, working conditions have improved somewhat or a lot in HEI, research
centers as parts of HEIs and in independent research centers (Table 6).
Table 7 presents data related to the faculty’s perception of various research
related issues. So, 59.6% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed with theassertion that pressure for obtaining external funding has increased since they
were first hired. Practically half (50.1%) of respondents think that highexpectations to increase productivity are a threat to research quality, while only
39.2% reported the same opinion regarding high expectations of useful research.
Finally, while 55.6% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that researchfunds should be allocated to the most prestigious researchers, 43.1% manifested
the same level of agreement with the assertion that at their institution the best
research is carried-out by SNI members.
Table 7. Opinion over various issues regarding research by respondents to the2007 Mexican Survey of the Changing Academic Profession
International Study
Faculty agreeing or strongly agreeing with the following statements related to funds and orientation ofresearch
Pressure to obtain external funds has increased since your first contract (62.1)*

59.6%

At this institution emphasis is made on commercial or applied research (71.5)

25.2%

Research funds should be allocated to the most prestigious researchers (80.1)

55.6%

Faculty agreeing or strongly agreeing with the following statements regarding research productivity
High expectations to increase research productivity are a threat to the quality of research (77.7)

50.1%High expectations of useful results and application are a threat to the quality of research (77.2)

39.2%

At this institution the best research is carried-out by faculty member of SNI (70.2)

43.1%

*

Numbers in parenthesis are the percentages of valid responses with respect to Nt = 826.

A fundamental component of the context in which academics perform theirwork is its relationship with the administrative sector of their institutions.

357
Table 8 presents data on several aspects related to the way academics perceive
this sector and its functioning. First, 55.8% of respondents identify their
institution management style as top-down and at the same time only 38.0%
report that communication between management and academics is good.
Second, administrative processes are perceived as cumbersome by 44.7%, while
41.5 and 32.5% of respondents report a supportive attitude from administrative
personnel for, respectively, teaching and research. Irrespective of the previous
opinions, 74.5% of respondents express the view that the administration supports
academic freedom (Table 8).
In relation to personal influence in the shaping of key academic policies, it
is reported to be the highest the closer is the organizational unit to faculty
members: 22.2%, 48.5% and 64.9% at the institutional, Faculty/school anddepartmental levels, respectively. Finally, 40.3% of respondents think that
top-level administrators provide competent leadership. In short, it appears that
there is a considerable gap between Mexican faculty and HEI administration andtherefore, there is a considerable amount of improvement possible (see Table 8).
Table 8. Opinion on various administrative issues of respondents to the 2007
Mexican Survey of the Changing Academic Profession International
Study (Nt = 826)
Faculty agreeing or strongly agreeing with various statements regarding institutional administration (%)
At my institution there is a top-down management style (95.8)*
At my institution there is good communication between management and academics (98.4)
I am kept informed about what is going on at this institution (98.3)

55.8
38.0
32.8

At my institution there is a cumbersome administrative process (94.3)
At my institution there is a supportive attitude from administrative personnel towards teaching(96.6)At my institution there is a supportive attitude from administrative personnel towards research(88.4)
The administration supports academic freedom in teaching (96.8)

44.7

You are somewhat/very influential in helping to shape key academic policies at the level of thedepartment or similar unit (93.1)
You are somewhat/very influential in helping to shape key academic policies at the level of thefaculty, school or similar unit (91.8)
You are somewhat/very influential in helping to shape key academic policies at the institutional
level (90.4)
Top-level administrators are providing competent leadership (97.6)
*

41.5
32.5
74.5
64.9
48.5
22.2
40.3

Numbers in parenthesis are the percentages of valid responses with respect to Nt = 826

As stated in the introduction, various higher education policies havegenerated several programs targeted at faculty. Three very important ones are
merit-pay systems, the Program for Faculty Improvement (PROMEP)358(Urbano-Vidales, Aguilar-Sahagún, & Rubio-Oca, 2006) and the National
Researchers System (SNI: Sistema Nacional de Investigadores). Table 9
presents the general opinion of the faculty surveyed regarding such programs.
Table 9. Opinion on four public policies targeted at academics of respondents
to the 2007 Mexican Survey of the Changing Academic Profession
International Study
Percentages of faculty participating in each of the following public-policy programs (Nt = 826).
Institutional merit-pay system
PROMEP (Program for the Improvement of the Professoriate) profile
PROMEP academic body
SNI (National Researchers System)

46.9
27.2
37.8
14.6

Percentages of faculty agreeing or strongly agreeing on various statements regarding four public policies
targeted at academics (Nt = 826).
SNI
Institutional
PROMEPPROMEP(National
Statement
merit-payacademic
profileResearcherssystems
body
System)
It has positively impacted my professional
57.0
55.5
44.7
65.9
development (66.5; 36.2; 40.1; 22.0)*
It has allow me to concentrate on my academic
56.0
45.5
36.4
59.5
work as my main activity (67.1; 35.4; 38.3; 20.9)
It has allow me to improve my teaching (66.5;
54.1
48.8
37.6
42.8
35.0; 37.7; 20.1)
It has allow me to improve my research (59.9;
44.6
49.8
47.8
64.2
34.7; 38.5; 20.9)
In general, I am satisfied with this program (67.2;
51.7
56.5
45.7
65.2
35.4; 38.4; 21.5)*

Numbers in parenthesis are for each program, respectively, the percentages of valid responses
with respect to Nt = 826.

In the first place, faculty members participate in the programs at issue toquite different extents: 14.6%, 27.2%, 37.8% and 46.9%, respectively, for SNI,PROMEP Profile, PROMEP Academic Body and institutional merit-pay systems.
Second, the economic relevance that institutional merit-pay systems and SNI
have is noteworthy, as 56.0% and 59.5% agree or strongly agreed, respectively,
with the assertion that those programs have allowed faculty to focus on theiracademic work as their main activity. Third, each of the four programs isreported to have a positive impact on teaching (54.1% in the case of merit-pay
systems) and research (64.2% in the case of SNI), but differentially. Fourth,
global satisfaction is largest for SNI (65.2% agree or strongly agree with thecorresponding assertion), second for PROMEP Profile (56.5%), third forinstitutional merit-pay systems (51.7%) and fourth for PROMEP Academic Body
(45.7%). The SNI program, however, is the program in which fewest faculty

359
members participate. So, it appears that all of these programs do have asignificant margin for improvement.

Concluding Remarks
Although preliminary, the following points can be made with a reasonableassurance. In relation to the profile of Mexican faculty there are four issues.
First, Mexican ft faculty still has to improve regarding its proportion of women,
currently at around 33.5%. Second, Mexican faculty is increasingly mature,with an average age of 48.1 years. It is a proper time to attend to retirement
and other issues facing an increasingly aging academic body. Third, there is a
growing proportion of faculty members with doctoral and post-doctoral awards.
There is an important challenge in assuring that this training translates itself into
better teaching, research and service.
Fourth, in a context of higher
expectations for relevance, it is a matter of concern that faculty report little work
experience outside HEI.
In relation to how academics see their work three points can be made.
First, Mexican faculty are mainly interested in teaching (57.5%), although there
is an important proportion of academics that report research as their central
preference (42.5%), and an even higher proportion that states that they doresearch (66.2%). It would be interesting to ask further about the notion ofresearch that underlies such declarations. Second, Mexican faculty think thatapplication of academic knowledge should be a central component of academic
work (87.8%), even more so than think in the same way about teaching (70.2%)
and research (57.8%). The professionally-oriented tradition in Mexican
undergraduate higher education should be brought into the analysis of thisinteresting situation. Third, in sharp contrast to the situation prevailing in theearly 1990s, Mexican ft faculty have increased their economic
professionalization, as 72.4% of them report that their academic work provides
them with 90-100% of their income. In general, the vast majority of Mexican
academics (87.7%) reported a high or very high level of overall job satisfaction.
In relation to the actual academic work we can highlight three points.
First, Mexican faculty is largely a teaching profession, although there are
significant proportions of them that see research and administration as their firstor second function in importance. Second, congruent with their perception of
their work, the number of hours devoted to teaching is more than double the timereported in doing research activities. Finally, of all ft faculty, 28.8% reported
international collaboration, with Spain and the United States being the countries

360
where Mexican faculty identify the most collaboration with colleagues. Aninternationalization strategy for Mexican higher education should consider such
results.
In relation to the faculty’s perception of their working conditions, thesituation is in general regular (e.g., 42.8% rate good or excellent classrooms), but
low in those aspects having to do with research (e.g., 28.2% rate good or
excellent research equipment and instruments). Support aspects having to dowith personnel and funds are seen as low (e.g., 22.6% and 17.8% rate good or
excellent, respectively, teaching support staff and teaching financial support), as
well as for programs of academic mobility (e.g., 19.3% rate good or excellent
support for national academic mobility). Finally, less than half of the survey
respondents think that working conditions have improved in HEI since they werefirst hired.
In relation to research, 59.6% of respondents reported more pressure toobtain external funds since they were first hired. Quality of research, on theother hand, is seen by half of the faculty as compromised by a concern toincrease productivity (50.1%), but not so much by a concern for applicability(39.2%). Finally, less than half of the respondents think that the best research iscarried out by faculty members of the National Researchers System (43.1%).
In relation to the way in which faculty perceive administration at their
institution the picture is one of a divided world between the administration andthe academy. Faculty indicate that academic freedom is supported by theadministration (74.5%), but beyond that there is a perception of a top-down
management style (55.8%) with low communication levels (38.0%) and a low
supportive attitude from the administration towards teaching (41.5%) andresearch (32.5%). Regarding influence by individual faculty members, a
relatively high level is reported at the departmental level (64.9%) but this rapidly
diminishes at more remote organizational levels (48.5 and 22.2% respectively at
Faculty and institutional levels).
Finally, items having to do with various programs derived from relatively
recent important national policies speak of their differential impact and,
therefore, of the need to more closely analyze their nature and dynamics, as theirsole implementation is no warranty that they will have the expected results. It
is expected that studies like the one we are reporting will contribute significantly
to this task.

361

References
Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ:
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Galaz Fontes, J.F. (2002). La satisfacción en el trabajo de académicos en una universidad
pública estatal. Perfiles Educativos, 24(96), 47-72.
García Salord, S., Grediaga Kuri, R., Landesmann Segall, M., & y Padilla González, L.E.
(2003). Los académicos en México: Hacia la constitución de un campo de conocimiento
1993-2002. In P. Ducoing (ed.), Sujetos, actores y procesos de formación (LaInvestigación Educativa en México 1992-2002, 8) (pp.113-296). México: Consejo
Mexicano de Investigación Educativa.
Gil-Antón, M. (1996). The Mexican academic profession. In P.G. Altbach (ed.), Theinternational academic profession: Portraits of fourteen countries (pp.307-339;
728-730). Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Gil-Antón, M. et al. (1994). Los rasgos de la diversidad: Un estudio sobre los académicos
mexicanos. México: Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana Azcapotzalco.
Martínez Romo, S. (2006). Una perspectiva de política educativa para este siglo: Las reformas
en la educación superior contemporánea y sus efectos en la universidad mexicana delprincipio del siglo. In L. Berruecos Villalobos, J.F. González Sánchez y, & M.A.
Jiménez Godínez (eds.), Perfil de la educación superior en la transición del México
contemporáneo (pp.37-57). México: IEESA, UNAM, UAM, e ITESM.
Urbano-Vidales, G., Aguilar-Sahagún, G., & y Rubio-Oca, J. (2006). Programa de
Mejoramiento del Profesorado: Un primer análisis de su operación e impactos en el
proceso de fortalecimiento académico de las universidades públicas. México: Secretaríade Educación Pública.

363

The Academic Profession in Argentina:
characteristics and trends in the context of a mass
higher education system

Monica Marquina∗ and Norberto Fernandez Lamarra∗∗

Introduction
The objective of this paper is to trace a panorama of the academic
profession (AP) in Argentina, taking as a starting point available preliminary
data obtained through the application to the Argentine case of the survey for“The Changing Academic Profession: an International Research Project” (CAP).
In order to understand these data it is necessary to place them contextually.
To this end a rapid panorama is first drawn of the expansion of the Argentine
higher education system in the last few decades, its impact on the emerging
academic profession and the evolution of both up to the present time. In thatframework we highlight some of the policies put into practice during the 1990s,
which created new conditions for academic work. These policies very probably
had bearing on the subject of our study, and may therefore contribute to theinterpretation of the responses obtained.
Subsequently some methodological consideration is given to application of
the instrument and the design of the sample in order to put forth somepreliminary results on the basis of the information obtained to date. We present
results of four aspects of the AP: 1) degrees obtained; 2) interests; 3) satisfaction
and 4) reference. We believe that by means of these aspects it is possible to∗

Research Professor, Comparative Education and Educational Policy, the Institute for Human
Development of the General Sarmiento National University, Argentina, e-mail:mmarquina@fibertel.com.ar∗∗
Research Professor and consultant, Higher Education Planning and Evaluation, Tres deFebero National University, Argentina, e-mail: nflamarra@fibertel.com.ar364
identify some characteristics of the work done by a wide range of Argentine
academics, reflecting in some cases the impact of recent changes. Although it
is premature to put forward definitive conclusions, this paper closes with theenumeration of some trends that would appear to be becoming manifest at thepresent time.

The Growth of the University System and the Academic Profession
The expansion of the Argentine higher education system
The Argentine higher education system manifests a highly complex
historical evolution characterised by the absence of long-term agreed policies, asa consequence of periods of interventions and depletions of the university by thepolitical power and other periods of splendour and growth.
In this framework it can be asserted that higher education had relatively
sustained development during the 20th century, with the University Reform of1918 having an important effect, a time in which the concept of autonomy wasset as the distinguishing seal. This expansion was produced almost exclusively
by the growth of the university public sector, which concentrates today morethan 85% of the university enrolment, far exceeding the Latin American averageof less than 50% (Fernandez Lamarra, 2003).
As far as the non-university sector of higher education is concerned, thisacquired characteristics which are both highly particular and clearly
differentiated from the university sector. Dedicated to the training of teachers
and technicians, these institutions account for less than one-third of the total
higher education enrolment and appear as devalued options against thepossibilities offered by the university, with access facilities both for admission
requirements and the non-existence of fees.
The expansion in the Argentine university enrolment began around the
middle of the century, with peaks that coincided with periods of politicaldemocracy and respect for autonomy and times of retrogression during themilitary governments. Between 1955 and 1966 it grew by 75%. Then in 1973
it increased by a further 66% due to the effect of the creation of new universities.
After a reduction in enrolment during the military dictatorship (1976-1983) the
democratic liberalization of 1984-1990 marked growth in university enrolmentby 65%.
Today higher education students are distributed unevenly between the two
sub-systems and between the private and public sectors. As can be seen in thefollowing tables (Figure 1, Table 1) it is the public university system where the365
greater number of students is concentrated. The features of open access andfree admission are the principal factors which explain this situation.

2.000.000
1.724.397

1.800.000
1.600.000
Enrollment

1.400.000
1.124.044

1.116.415

1.200.000
1.000.000

679.495

800.000
481.746600.000
400.000
200.000

173.935
86.08080.445298.389220.684

157.163
5.635

0
1950

39.84637.85914.2922.480

1960

455.198

315.4091970

334.862
93.645102.058

72.692

1980

1991

145.195

2000

Year
Higher Education

Public Universities

Private Universities

Tertiary non university institutions

Source: Fernandez Lamarra, 2003

Figure 1. Expansion of higher education enrolment
Table 1. Number of higher education students and institutions according todependency
PublicPrivateInstitution

Students

Institution

Students

University system

45

1,258,729

55

201,391

Non-university system772

297,476

1,002

197,485817

1,556,205

1,057

398,876

Sources: MECyT, SPU, 1999-2003 Yearly Report on University Statistics. MECyT, DINIECE,
Educational Statistical Yearly Report

The academic profession in Argentina: heterogeneity and unplanned expansion
Unlike other Latin American countries, scientific output concerning theacademic profession is very recent in Argentina and still in its early stages. In
part the absence of research concerning faculty is owed to the fact that it is not
until the last decade that information concerning university professors began to
be produced in a sustained manner, when interest appeared at the level ofpolitical decision-making for considering the coordination of the university
system as a question for the political agenda.
Nevertheless statistical information concerning university teachers in the366
private university sector is still non-existent. Taking into account the scant
representation of this sector in the system as a whole and also the scarcity of
information, our research has taken as its object for analysis the body of public
university teachers in the country as a whole and it is this group that is the
subject characterised in this section.
Intra- and inter-institutional heterogeneity, successive institutional
disruptions and political interventions in university life plus the unplanned
expansion of the teaching body as a product of the expansion of the enrolment
appear as the principal features of our academic profession, which belatedly
began to take shape towards the middle of the 20th century.
The period 1955-1960 constituted a stage of highly significant qualitative
growth that had a profound impact on what at that time could be denominated aclearly identifiable AP. It was a time notable for scientific and academic
advances, whereby the AP clearly advanced towards a strong identity in terms of
its disciplinary relevance becoming more than the merely institutional.
The growth of the teaching body in Argentine universities accompanied the
explosion in enrolment and moreover remained constant even in times during themilitary dictatorship when the number of students was reduced. The decade
1982-1992 showed a doubling of the total teaching body although part-time
faculty continued in the majority (Chiroleu, 2002). From that time, although its
growth has remained steady, it has not kept pace with the growth in the numberof students.

125

1999=100

120
115

Teaching staff
Students

110
105
100
1999

2000

2003

2004

2005

Year

Source: Authors’ own work based on data from SPU (1996-2005)

Figure 2. Evolution of teaching staff and enrolment growth 1999-2005

Today the majority of this teaching body is between 40 and 50 years of age.
From information available it is possible to make the assertion that in the last

367
decade a group of academics, which presently fluctuates between 35 and 54
years, has become consolidated in university institutions, a situation that
demonstrates an uncommon stability when compared with previous decades.

18.00016.000Teachers

14.00012.00010.000

1998

8.000

2005

6.000
4.000
2.000
0
18 to
24

25 to
29

30 to
34

35 to
39

40 to
44

45 to
49

50 to
54

55 to
59

60 to
64

mo re
than 65

Age

Source: Authors’ own work based on data from SPU (1996-2005)

Figure 3. Age of the teaching body 1998-2005 (years)

140.000
120.000

Teachers

100.000

Totals80.000Full-time
Semi-Full time

60.000Part-time

40.00020.00001994 1995 1996 1999 20002001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year
Source: Authors’ own work based on data from SPU (1996-2005)

Figure 4. Evolution of the teaching body 1994-2005 totals and according to‘dedication’368
Another characteristic of this group is related to the majority presence ofpart-time teachers – or those with partial “dedication” to the academic activity –which leads to the supposition that the majority of university teachers do notconsider this task as primary among their other occupations. Although thisfeature has been constant it is possible to note that in the last few years thegrowth in the number of part-time teachers (10 hours weekly) to attend to a
growing student demand has evolved more rapidly than the increase in the total
number of teachers.
13%

22%
F

65%

Full-time
Semi-full-timePart-time

Source: Authors’ own work based on data from SPU-MECyT (2005)

Figure 5. Dedication of the teaching body to academic activity 2005

Today we can observe a university teaching body composed of a third who
dedicate themselves exclusively (40 hours per week) or semi-exclusively (24hours per week) to teaching and research and two-thirds who do so only parttime.1On the other hand teachers in Argentine universities are distributed evenly
according to gender. Although a certain predominance of males is evident – amajority that has diminished in recent years – it is striking how this tendency has
been inverted sharply in favour of women when we look at full-time teachers.
The chair is the type of organisation of academic work which predominatesin universities, above all in the most traditional. Under this scheme the faculty
career system is composed of a series of five positions organised hierarchically,
into the categories of: auxiliary teachers (Junior Assistant and Assistant Professor,
who may be called Chief of Practical Works – JTP) and professors (Associate,1

In many cases, which it is as yet not possible to quantify, the fact that the teacher is part-time
does not mean that s/he does not carry out research duties. When the teacher’s interest is
related to the development of an academic career in which scientific production is a key
element for promotion, the teacher carries out research regardless of whether this task isrecognized in monetary terms. It is for this reason that in the survey sample the Argentine
team decided to include part-time teachers in the analysis.

369
Adjunct and Chair Professor).2 In theory the first group takes responsibility for
coordinating the commission of students’ practical assignments, and at the sametime attends theory classes given by professors. Other institutions are organised
under departmental structures in an attempt to avoid the vertical and rigid natureof the chair. Nevertheless, the different levels of the teaching positions do notvary to a great extent and in actual fact in many cases a vertical work system ismaintained.

Totals
60,0
50,0
40,0
% 30,0
20,0
10,0
0,0

Females
Males

1998

2000

2004

2005

Year

Source: Authors’ own work based on data from SPU (1996-2005)

Figure 6. Faculty according to gender 1998-2005

Full-time

Females

N

Males

54,0
52,0
50,0
48,0
46,0
44,0

1998

2000

2004

Year

Source: Authors’ own work based on data from SPU (1996-2005)

Figure 7. Faculty according to gender 1998-2004
2

The positions described in the paper refer specifically to the Argentine education system anddo not necessarily correspond to similarly termed positions within the British or North
American systems. Each of these positions is independent of the “dedication”. The term
“dedication” is used to refer to the time the faculty member devotes to the position; thus
“exclusive dedication” is an alternative for “full-time”.

370
Access to positions is decided, in general terms, by a mechanism termed the“contest of work record and opposition”, in which the institution makes an open
call for the occupation of a position and selection is made by a board of
adjudicators composed of peers with positions higher in the hierarchy. Theirjob is to evaluate the aptitude of the applicants by means of their curricula vitae,
an interview and the observation of a class, the topic of which is decided by thedrawing of lots from the curriculum of the course that is being contested. In thecase of professorial positions the duration of the contested appointments extends
to six or seven years, at the end of which time an open contest is called to refill
the same post. In the case of auxiliary teachers the time period is less. The
teaching contest gives to the teacher ‘regular’ status, or stability for its duration.
This status implies that these teachers cannot be removed – except in extreme
circumstances – and that they have acquired ‘university citizenship’ whichallows them to choose and to be chosen for various bodies or positions inuniversity governance. Thus the complexity of this contest mechanism lies in
its double impact of quality for the academic activity and the politicalconsequence.3
In the last few years, above all since the reforms of the 1990s, innovations
have been implemented in the systems governing access to positions, especiallyin the new universities created around that time. In some cases a variation in
the contest method has been opted for, by which the panel of examiners
evaluates the work carried out by teachers holding the position at the expirationof their term and their continuation in the posts is decided. Other universities,
following innovative models, have opted directly for systems of hiring teacherswith annually renewable contracts, as in the majority of private universities.
Another feature of the Argentine academic profession is provided by the
low level of salaries. Although on average university institutions dedicate morethan 85% of their budget to personnel expenses, many – above all the largest andmost traditional – function by ‘work donation’ (Fernandez Lamarra, 2003). In
the biggest universities, such as those of Buenos Aires and La Plata, around 30%
of teachers, in general recent graduates who work as auxiliaries to the chair at
3This complexity explains many of the current problems concerning governability in the
traditional and bigger universities. In several cases the percentage of teachers chosen bycontest is low, and this is due not only to the complexity of sustaining those mechanisms but
also to political decisions which influence the impeding or advancement of contests whichclearly have the potential to determine the political composition of the governing bodies in
the universities. The recent case of the governability crisis in the University of Buenos
Aires (UBA) has its origin in these causes.

371
the head of courses, do so ad honorem, as part of the inevitable initiation to an
academic career, or for professional prestige. However these posts do receive
recognition in terms of some type of formalisation of the relationship ofdependency with the university institution. At the present time there is someconcern regarding this situation, due to which policies have been announced
tending to reduce the number of ad honorem teachers who do not hold anotherpaying position.
Although in the last five years teacher remuneration has increased
substantially after being frozen for a long period – reaching, in the case of somepart-time teachers, to increments of 200% – faculty salaries continue low today.
Table 2. Teacher salaries according to position and years of service
Position

Dedication

Salary in Arg. $Chair Professor(maximum service)
Assistant Professor –JTP–(medium service)
Junior Assistant(First class, without yearsof service)

Full-timePart-time
Full-timePart-time
Full-time

6,248
1,562
3,987
853
2,242

Salary in
American $
1,952
488
1,246
266
700

Part-time

561

175

Source: Authors’ own work based on data from MECyT 2007

In spite of this panorama and the limited resources available for research,
the greater part of the scientific output in the country is produced in national
universities, which translates into more than two-thirds of articles published.
The policies of the 1990s for the academic profession: between the availabilityof resources and accountability
In university matters, the government which took office in 1989 designed
and implemented a political agenda for the sector that was clearly set within theinternational trends of the era, by placing the emphasis on the efficiency of
institutional administration and improvement in educational quality. These
policies took specific shape from 1994 when certain measures were developed atgovernmental level.
These policies have modified faculty work, thesocialisation mechanisms and their practices. Thus a type of academic began toemerge, characterised by a high level of postgraduate education and with therequirement of developing teaching and research duties. Within this framework
academic activity began to be evaluated according to criteria of productivity inresearch – more than in teaching – and with different incentives and regulations

372
being introduced that begin to constitute an academic work model, which untilthat time had been limited to certain specific disciplines. Some of these policies
are described briefly in the following section.
The Fund for Improvement in University Quality (FOMEC)
The creation of FOMEC re-oriented university teachers’ activity indirecting them to present projects that aimed at institutional improvement.
With funding from the World Bank the four ‘calls’ realised between 1995 and1998 distributed $203 million to the financing of 472 projects carried out byteams of research teachers in national universities. These funds were assignedon the whole to the acquisition of assets (54.4%) and the financing ofscholarships for attending graduate programs in Argentina and abroad (34.5%)(SPU, 1996). Marquis (2004), one of its creators, maintains that this initiative
implied “the establishment of a new link between government and universities,
particularly with faculty leaders, by which quality and financing formed apartnership” (p.7). From more critical positions it is asserted that this fund has
consolidated an unequal distribution of resources and power among diverse
faculty groups within one single institution as it has also weakened theperspective concerning the improvement in quality at the institutional level
insofar as the programme set its foundations in a direct link with groups,
avoiding the institutional authorities (Chiroleu, 2002; Cano, 1995). This
programme signified the point of departure from the policy of the differential
assignation of funds to faculty groups in a way that was direct and competitive, acourse of action which continues in existence to the present day.
The Programme of Incentives for Teacher – Researchers
In the year 1993 the National Programme of Incentives for Teacher –Researchers was created with the aim of promoting an integrated focus onacademic careers, contributing to an increase in research tasks within theuniversity, and stimulating teaching staff towards a greater dedication toscholarship (Ministry of Education, 1994). In the framework of plainly
depressed salaries, this incentive meant an improvement in the incomes offaculty members who voluntarily joined the programme, met with certain
requisites and fulfilled pre-established performance guidelines. Thus, by meansof a systematisation of information regarding academic activity, the government
established a new mechanism for quality control to regulate the activity of agroup of teacher-researchers in public universities, which has varied in number
during the course of its existence.

373
Some preliminary studies exist concerning the effects of this programme,
which need to be corroborated. Marquis (2004) recognises that in addition tobenefits, such as the increase in scientific production and the tendency toconsolidate research groups and salary improvement, it has also generated“undesired effects: the development of an appearance of research of low real
impact, an excess of competitiveness among colleagues, a lack of stability withrespect to salary increments obtained, etc.” (loc. cit. p.8).

Part-time
Semi-full-time% from total

25

Full-time

20
15
10
5
0
1994

1995

1996

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Year

Source: Authors’ own work based on data from SPU (1996-2005)

Figure 8. Research Teachers receiving incentives: total percentages
and according to dedications 1994-2005

From a more critical position Sonia Araujo demonstrates through a national
university case study the way in which this programme generated greater
competition and rivalry, a growing bureaucratisation and the “strengthening ofauthoritarian practices in the life of the faculty” (Araujo, 2004). Furthermore,
the research carried out by Araujo demonstrates that the bureaucratisation
generated by the enticement of being able to reach a “categorisation or
re-categorisation” – by means of which higher incomes could be obtained –resulted in the loss of a sense of the meaning of the research activity, loss oforiginality and the gradual contamination of the faculty, which evolved into
unprecedented vices and pathologies such as self-plagiarisms, inflation of
curricula vitae, ‘boys’ clubs’, cliques, nepotisms and favouritisms (Araujo,2004).
In the present day, with some minor adjustments, the programme continues
functioning with the same budget in absolute values since the moment of its
creation. In terms of material value the programme does not represent theimportance of its origins, not only because of the effect of inflation during so374
many years but also because the number of teachers benefiting from theprogramme has increased. However, symbolic values of a kind are distributed
through this mechanism, by the installation of a system of categories allotting,by peers, a recognised career record in regards to the academic progress of eachfaculty member.
Continuity of the ‘90s model in present policies
In recent years the introduction of evaluation and accrediting processes of
institutions and programmes has generated a series of new institutional practices
that involve academics who are participants in both self-evaluation and external
evaluation activities. One aspect to investigate is related to the role academics
have assumed in these new processes.
New options also appear for obtaining funds for research or for the specificdevelopment of programmes, assigned competitively to institutions or researchteams that have gone on to form part of the practices already installed for thesector by the Ministry of Education. Thus, the new courses of action for theassignment of funds have an influence on academic activity insofar as themultiple submissions for competitive funds have begun to generate the practiceof the design of projects, the filling in of forms and the preparation of reports,
arising from initiatives that do not necessarily have anything to do with themission or the institutional priorities but do have a connection with government
policies. Without a doubt these new conditions for academic work haveoperated and operate forcefully in the area of tension that has been produced inacademic fields with respect to the distribution of material and symbolic assets(Bourdieu, 1983, 1989). It becomes necessary to evaluate this hypothesis
through empirical, concrete information and hence the importance of studies
such as this and all those that may be derived from it.

Research advances in the framework of CAP
As was said above, output concerning the academic profession in Argentina
is scarce. Some exploratory works do exist; others refer to cases in particularinstitutions or disciplines. No one case concerns empirical studies of national
import, for which reason the significance of the Argentine component of CAP
has unlimited potential for our country.

375
Methodological aspects
To carry out the survey, faculty in public universities, i.e. those teachers ofany dedication and position with a relationship of dependency with national
universities were considered as the analysis population. This demarcation isjustified by the fact that the private sector is marginal both in terms of students
and of teachers; that the information on its small number of teachers is
non-existent; and that on the whole these teachers also fulfil duties in public
universities. Those in the wide non-university spectrum of higher educationacquire characteristics far removed from what is considered academic activity as
they have contracts per class hour, do not carry out research and their activity ismore similar to that of a secondary school teacher than to that of an academic.
The definition of the sample was performed in one single step, taking as astarting point the official base available from the System of University
Information (SIU) of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of the
Nation. From the total of 119,000 teachers in existing national universities, arandom national sample of 2,400 teachers was designed, a figure which comesout of an international agreement of estimation of a percentage of 30% ofeffective replies, and which has as its goal obtaining 800 responses. The
instrument in its Spanish version had added a few questions related toparticularities of the Argentine system and was a product of a process of
discussion and trial in addition to consultations with other teams in Latin
America.4
At the time of this report, 70% of expected replies had been obtained, with a
distribution of respondents very similar to that of the total sample except for acertain bias towards full-time teachers in the answers received. Nevertheless,for the quantity of responses obtained, an acceptable level of reliability is
estimated in the representative value of these preliminary results.
Preliminary survey results
We start from the hypothesis that public policies regarding academics havegenerated changes in the system of recognition and recompense that explain thepreferences, interests, commitments and states of mind. Greater preference for
4

The field work, although still in process, consisted in the localisation of people and contact
with invitation by e-mail to the filling out of the survey on line. This was set up in an
automatic virtual system which allowed its administration, with invitations to participate andperiodic reminders. The major difficulty in the field work was not in obtaining a reply but
in locating the teachers chosen. The official base provided a series of data on each teacher
selected, from which e-mail address, telephone and postal address were excluded.

376
research or teaching, recognition from the discipline, the institution or the
department as principal field of reference, or inquiring into the degree ofsatisfaction with the task they perform may be indicators of these changes, which
probably affect academics in different ways depending on their discipline, thetime when they set out on their academic career path, the position they fill, thetime they dedicate to the activity, or their gender. Therefore the next section
presents some results of the survey applied by selecting four main aspects:
degrees obtained, interests, satisfaction and principal reference.
Degrees obtained
Unlike other countries in the world and also in the region, the possession ofa graduate degree is not a generalised condition among Argentine academics.
In the survey carried out only 22.7% of respondents have doctorates and thepossession of a master’s or a specialisation5 appears in similar percentages.
Table 3. Graduate degrees obtained by respondents grouped according to year(%)
Between1960
and 1975

Between1976
and 1983

Between1984
and 1989

Between1990
and 1999

Between2000
and 2007

Row
totals% withrespect tototalSpecialisation

3.2

9.8

3.2

32.2

51.6

100

20.4

Master’s

1.4

4.3

4.3

28.6

61.4

100

23.0

Doctorate

5.8

4.3

5.8

29.1

55.0

100

22.7

Postdoctorate

7.7

0.0

7.7

23.0

61.6

100

4.3

In effect, the explosion in the attainment of postgraduate degrees inArgentina is a recent phenomenon, framed within the modernising agenda of the‘90s. From that time forward, and in the last two periods considered for the
purposes of our study, strong growth in the number of academics who obtain
postgraduate degrees is seen, with greater emphasis in the most recent period.
Thus it can be asserted that more than 80% of faculty surveyed attest to having
obtained their postgraduate degree after 1990 and more than 50% after 2000.
These data are closely associated with the impulse given by the government in
the direction of obtaining teaching profiles of a high level of education,translated into policies that are aligned with the type of academic already spelt
out in previous sections.

5

Graduate programme professionally oriented.

377
Academics’ interests
The academics surveyed have a slight tendency to prefer research activity tothat of teaching. More than half (51.8%) opt for research either exclusively(6.8%) or for “both, but leaning towards research” (45%). Differentiating
according to position, we see that this tendency is more pronounced the further isthe post up the hierarchical scale. Those holding positions of Chair Professor
appear above the overall average. Conversely, Assistant Professors (JTP) and
Associates exceed the general average of opting for “teaching” or “both but
leaning towards teaching” (51.5% and 55% respectively).
The Junior
Assistants do not echo this tendency, orienting more towards “research” (9.6%)or “both but leaning towards research” (48.1%), between the two questions
reaching 57.7% of the total of Junior Assistants. The option oriented toteaching by the Assistant Professors (JTP) and Associates can be explained by
the fact that it is on them that the burden of organising the teaching activity falls
within the chair academic work organisation. An understanding of the Junior
Assistants’ inclination towards research requires the aid of another of theanalysis units, for which reason we describe this subsequently.
Table 4. Interests among functions according to position(%)

Primarily inteaching

In both, butleaning
towards
teaching

In both, butleaning
towards
researchPrimarily inresearch

Row totals

Junior Assistant

9.6

32.7

48.1

9.6

100

Assistantprofessor (JTP)

13.0

38.5

41.5

7.0

100

Associate

5.6

49.4

40.5

4.5

100

Adjunct

25.0

25.0

50.0

0

100

Chair Professor

9.3

30.2

60.5

0

100

Columnaverage

10.0

38.2

45.0

6.8

100

Considering the “dedication” variable, as expected the tendency to preferresearch is more pronounced in the case of full-time teachers. This group
inclines towards research exclusively (7.2%) or for “both but leaning towards
research” (58.6%). This tendency diminishes as positions with less dedicationof time are considered. Nevertheless, it is worth highlighting the case ofpart-time teachers as a specific case, as a post that is clearly conceived as
designated for teaching is being occupied by people who even with that proviso

378
prefer research or both functions but leaning towards research in a percentagethat is by no means insignificant (39.6%).
(%)

Table 5. Interests among functions according to “dedication”
Primarily inteaching

In both, butleaning
towards
teaching

In both, butleaning
towards
researchPrimarily inresearch

Row totals

Full-time

0.9

33.3

58.6

7.2

100

Semi-full-time

11.3

46.8

37.1

4.8

100

Part-time

20.9

39.6

34.1

5.5

100

Column average

10.0

38.2

45.0

6.8

100

On considering interests according to discipline areas (Becher, 2001), a
wide diversity can be seen with respect to the mean. The discipline areas thatexceed the mean towards research in its two varieties are those of the applied,
hard disciplines (61.4%), the pure, hard ones (60.8%), and the pure, soft
disciplines (59.6%). At the other extreme the disciplines that which favour
teaching in its two varieties are the applied, soft disciplines (66.9%). Althoughthese preferences are associated with the characteristics of the academic work ofeach of the disciplines, which establish specific mechanisms for internalsocialization, it is interesting to note the preference towards research in the caseof the applied, hard disciplines, in which Engineering, Agronomy and Medicine
predominate. These fields are currently the object of accreditation processes
that state the research activity as a requirement weakly present in the recently
administered evaluations. It is possible that the stated preferences are
influenced because of this situation.
Table 6. Interests according to discipline areas(%)

Primarily inteaching

In both, butleaning
towards
teaching

In both, butleaning
towards
researchPrimarily inresearch

Row totals

Pure, hard

10.9

28.3

50.0

10.8

100

Applied, hard

13.6

25.0

53.4

8.0

100

Discipline areas

Pure, soft

2.1

38.3

53.2

6.4

100

Applied, soft

10.1

56.8

29.9

3.2

100

Column average

10.0

38.2

45.0

6.8

100

379
Considering gender, differences are seen in the interests of academics.
Women coincide with the general mean, while men prefer the research activity(8.8%) or “both with a leaning towards research” (49.1%), the difference
between the two options exceeding the general mean by 7 points.
Table 7. Interests according to gender(%)

Primarily inteaching

In both, butleaning
towards
teaching

In both, butleaning
towards
researchPrimarily inresearch

Row totals

Female

6.9

42.8

44.1

6.2

100

Male

11.4

30.7

49.1

8.8

100

Column average

10.0

38.2

45.0

6.8

100

GenderLastly, it is worthwhile considering the career span of faculty in evaluating
their interests. For this purpose we make use of the “year of obtaining firstpost” indicator, by analysing two periods.6 We see that while the teachers withmore years of service fit into the general mean, strikingly the youngest, who
obtained their first posts after 2000, clearly incline exclusively towards research(16.3% rather than 6.8% of the general mean), or “both but leaning towards
research” (55% rather than 45% of the general mean), showing that 71.4% of
these young teachers have an inclination towards this activity. This tendency
could at the same time explain why on considering “position” the Junior
Assistants group differs from the general tendency of greater inclination forteaching the lower down the hierarchical scale the post they hold. Given that
this category groups together teachers who recently initiated an academic career,
it is probable that the analysis of this variable, which considers time, helps to
explain the former. Thus, a certain influence by the public policies of the ‘90s
could be inferred, accepted more significantly by the youngest as a means ofincorporation into and promotion within an academic career.
6

The years have been grouped according to periods defined by key points in the country’s
history. The first period, until 1976, considers the period of splendour for the Argentine
university, the 1960s, which endured in spite of military interventions previous to the coup of
1976. The second period covers the military dictatorship and state terrorism that deeply
affected the university. The third period marks the first government of the democratictransition, followed by the fourth of neo-liberal modernisation and introduction of theArgentine university to international norms. The last period marks the most recent time andincludes the profound economic crisis of 2001 until the present day. In this report the firstand last periods of this classification are considered.

380
(%)

Table 8. Interests according to obtainment of first post
Primarily inteaching

In both, butleaning
towards
teaching

In both, butleaning
towards
researchPrimarily inresearch

Row totals

14.7

35.3

44.1

5.9

100

From 2000

8.2

20.4

55.1

16.3

100

Column average

10.0

38.2

45.0

6.8

100

Until 1976

Satisfaction with the academic job
Argentine academics show a considerable level of satisfaction with thetasks they perform (more than 60%), which runs in contrast to internationaltendencies of the last few decades that showed low self-esteem and growingpressure (Boyer et al., 1994; Altbach, 2000). It is likely that the salary update
experienced in the last few years – after more than a decade of frozen salaries –may explain this favourable state of mind.
Considering the gender variable, we see that there are no great differenceswith respect to the overall average between the “very high” and “high” levels ofsatisfaction (females 60.6% and males 62.3%).
(%)

Table 9. Satisfaction according to gendervery high2

3

4

Very low

Row totals

Female

17.2

43.4

29.7

6.9

2.8

100

Male

20.2

42.1

28.9

7.0

1.8

100

Column average

18.2

43.2

30.0

6.4

2.1

100

In contrast, where we do observe significant variations with respect to themean is in the variables “dedication” and “position”. Full-time academics
show more satisfaction (71.2%, by combining “high” and “very high”) thanpart-time faculty (52.8%) with the semi-full-timers lying between the two(58.1%). In this last case the low comparative level of satisfaction may be dueto the ambiguity in this “dedication”: those from whom tasks similar to those offull-time faculty are demanded in spite of a lesser quantity of weekly working
hours.

381(%)

Table 10. Satisfaction according to “dedication”
very high2

3

4

Very low

Row totals

Full-time

19.8

51.4

24.3

4.5

0

100

Semi-full-time

24.2

33.9

38.7

3.2

0

100

Part-time

11.0

41.8

31.9

11.0

4.4

100

Column average

18.2

43.2

30.0

6.4

2.1

100

For their part, while Associates remain at the general mean, we see that
Chair Professors and Adjuncts far exceed it, showing high levels of satisfaction(83.3 and 68.8% respectively). Assistant Professors (JTP) and Junior Assistants
are far below the average of satisfaction, the former being those who manifest
the least level of “high” and “very high” satisfaction (53.9%) within a mean that,again, is worth noting for its generally high level.
There is no doubt that salary level is an unconsidered variable that is
operating indirectly on these results. Those most satisfied with the academic
tasks are those in higher positions in the hierarchy and those of greater time
“dedication”. In both cases, separately and even more jointly, it is a question ofpeople who receive higher remuneration.
(%)

Table 11. Satisfaction according to post
very high2

3

4

Very low

Row totals

21.2

36.5

25.0

11.5

5.8

100

(JTP)

12.3

41.6

36.9

7.7

1.5

100

Associate

13.5

48.3

31.5

5.6

1.1

100

Adjunct

18.8

50.0

31.2

0

0

100

Chair Professor

32.6

51.2

14.0

2.3

0

100

Column average

18.2

43.2

30.0

6.4

2.1

100

Junior Assistant
Assistant Professor

Considering the different disciplines, we see that the general tendency of
61.4% for “very high” and “high” level of satisfaction is maintained in theapplied, hard disciplines (61.6%) and is higher in the areas of pure, hard (64.6%)
and applied, soft disciplines (65.4%). Below the average level are found thepure, soft disciplines (54.1%).

382
(%)

Table 12. Satisfaction according to disciplinary areas
very high2

3

4

Very low

Row totals

Pure, hard

24.1

40.5

32.0

3.4

0.0

100

Applied, hard

14.0

47.6

31.5

4.7

2.3

100

Pure, soft

15.2

38.9

33.0

9.9

3.0

100

Applied, soft

19.6

45.8

23.6

7.8

3.2

100

Column average

18.2

43.2

30.0

6.4

2.1

100

Finally, some interesting data appear when we measure satisfaction
according to the time of entering faculty life. Teachers with a longer academic
career record are the most satisfied with their jobs (70.6% compared to an
average of 61.4%), while the youngest appear less satisfied, with a percentage of
46.9% from both “high” and “very high” levels of satisfaction These data
may be associated with the initial difficulties of insertion in the academic career
for those who recently began, while teachers with longer service have alreadytravelled a road that was less competitive and less populated, and today are
consolidated in their academic life.
Table 13. Satisfaction according to year of obtaining a first post
very high2

3

4

Very low(%)

Row totals

Until 1976

23.5

47.1

23.5

5.9

0

100

From 2000

12.2

34.7

34.7

10.2

8.2

100

Average

18.2

43.2

30.0

6.4

2.1

100

In the survey there are other questions associated with the degree ofsatisfaction that can be analysed. On asking if they have considered making
some important change to their job, 58.3% of those surveyed answered in thenegative. These percentages again vary when we consider positions, showing a
direct relation between a greater percentage of negative answer and a higher
position in the hierarchy. Those in lower ranking positions are found below theaverage: Junior Assistants, 46.1%, and Assistant Professors (JTP), 53.5%,
respond in the negative, as do Associates, in 60% of cases, Adjuncts in 75% andChair Professors in 68%.
Analysing the same question according to“dedications” we see the same correlation: part-timers 48.9% in the negative;
semi-full-timers 60.3% and full-timers 66%. According to gender, there are no
significant differences. Finally, according to the time of initiating their careers
we see that faculty with longer service respond in the negative in a greater

383
percentage (61.7%) than those who started recently (44.9%).
Another three questions associated with greater pressure or negative viewof academic work are analysed, registering the percentages of negative answers(“absolutely disagree” and “disagree”) shown in Table 14. More than 80% of
faculty surveyed would still choose to be academics if they had to begin theircareer again, more than half do not consider it a source of personal stress andalmost 60% would recommend to young people that they take up an academic
career. These results confirm the high level of satisfaction indicated by theanswers to the previous question.
The differences in the responses according to the variables considered are
not significant, or at least do not present correlations that could give rise to
specific interpretations. It could be said that the highest posts are moreemphatic in the idea of making the same choice if they had to start again; that
according to “dedications” there is a direct relationship between higher
position/greater emphasis on the idea of choosing again an academic career; andthat both faculty with more years of service and those who began their careers
recently are less emphatic in this answer, with respect to the general average.
Table 14.

Percentage of negative answers to three questions according to post,“dedication”, gender and time of entry in the academic career(%)

If I had it to do overagain, I would not
become an
Variable / question
academic(disagree/strongly
disagree)Junior assistants
82.7
Assistant
83.1
professors (JTP)
Position
Associates
83.1
Adjuncts
93.8
Chair professors
86.0
Full-time
86.5
Dedication
Semi-full-time
83.9
Part-time
80.2
Female84.8
GenderMale
83.4
Moment of
Until 1976
79.6
insertionin the academic
From 2000
79.6
careerTotal average

83.6

My job is a sourceof considerable
personal strain(disagree/strongly
disagree)53.8

This is a poor time
for any young
person to begin an
academic career in
my field (disagree/strongly disagree)
51.9

53.8

56.9

49.5
62.6
58.2
51.3
56.5
57.2
49.6
58.7

64.0
81.3
55.8
69.3
62.9
56.1
62.7
55.2

55.1

51.1

55.1

51.1

53.9

59.6

384
As regards the question related to personal strain in academic work, theAdjunct and Part-time positions, men, and faculty with a longer career recordthat they feel less strain compared with the overall average, which we repeat isalready very low, since we are considering “absolutely disagree” and “disagree”
with the affirmation suggested in the question.
Finally, as is to be expected, although more than half the total do not agreewith the idea of not recommending beginning an academic career to theyoungest faculty, it is those youngest (Junior Assistants, and insertion after 2000)
who are found farthest below this general average.
Area of Reference
In general terms those surveyed define discipline (70.2%) as the principal
field of reference (“very important”), followed by institution (62.3%) and finallydepartment (53.2%). The order of importance of the three areas of reference ismaintained on considering all positions, with the exception of that of Chair
Professor, where the main field of reference is the institution (72.2%), followedby discipline (67.4%) and in third place the department (55.8%). It is probablethat this reference is related to a longer period of service in the academic activity
that causes the institutional component in academic work to be valued.
Table 15. Reference: totals and post of chair professor
Veryimportant
Discipline

Department

Institution

2

3

4

(%)

Not at allimportant

Total
Chair
Professor

70.7

21.4

6.1

1.1

0.7

100

67.4

18.6

11.6

2.3

0.0

100

Total
Chair
Professor

53.2

30.4

11.8

3.9

0.7

100

55.8

27.9

9.3

7.0

0.0

100

62.9

23.9

10.0

3.2

0.0

100

72.1

16.3

4.7

7.0

0.0

100

Total
Chair
Professor

If we consider “dedication” (time devoted to the academic activity) theorder of importance given these three areas of reference does not vary from thegeneral total. Neither were variations found on examining the time of access tothe first post, nor regarding gender, nor disciplines.
These results indicate that, in spite of the great diversity of disciplines, with
their different mechanisms of socialization and recognition, as well as degrees oforganisation around rules, the value of reference to the discipline appears inwidespread ways. It is possible that this option is coherent with the model to385
which academic work has been conforming as a consequence of the recent public
policies.

Some Provisional Conclusions
Keeping in mind the limitations peculiar to surveys of the type we
implemented, it is possible to conclude with some preliminary results that need
to be corroborated with in-depth studies. In effect, each of the questions asked
and the corresponding responses from those surveyed is intercepted by a space
which is impossible to penetrate with this methodology as it is related to thesubjectivity of each person surveyed. Thus each stated preference could be
influenced by what the respondent believes is expected, whether by us, thesurveyors, or by the system itself that establishes academically correct practices,which it is supposed that today every academic – above all the youngest – must
follow. Be that as it may, and even with these reservations, the answers have an
inherent value in that they may be analysed. Accordingly, we can synthesise
the results of this analysis.
From the results we can infer that the university teachers surveyed tend toadapt to the academic model implicit in university public policies implemented
in the last decade.
We have seen that the growth in the number of doctors, masters andspecialists is a recent phenomenon. In the same way there is a majority
tendency to incline towards research in the tasks of preference. Both aspects
are criteria of evaluation that appear in all processes to which Argentine facultypresently are submitted, whether in order to obtain subsidies, to accede to a
position or to stand out from their peers at the moment of being selected as aproject evaluator, a peer reviewer, or member of a faculty committee.
In this sense it has been observed that faculty who recently began theircareers are those who seem to show greater predisposition and interest in
adapting to these criteria. Together with the highest positions – Chair andAdjunct Professors – it is the Junior Assistants who most markedly opt for
research, as also do those who initiated academic careers after 2000.
It is also worthwhile considering in this tendency, in addition to thereasonable preference for research of full-time faculty, the significant group of
part-time faculty – who hold positions that are supposedly oriented to teaching –who also choose research as the academic activity of preference.
Considering the educational disciplines directs attention to members of
disciplinary areas that have no tradition of organization of academic work

386
around research yet now demonstrate their preference for this activity. It is
possible that the diversity of every disciplinary field today tends to homogenize
in a common pattern of academic work disseminated as desirable by public
policies.
Following the same line of argument when we consider the field ofreference, “discipline” appears as the most significant at the expense of“institution” and “department”. This preference is in line with previous
assertions, insofar as the external incentives of academic recognition foster
activities linked to respective disciplinary fields – publications, attendance at
events, participation in committees etc. – rather than the institution and thedepartment.
In spite of this influence through public policies, academics in our country
are very satisfied with their jobs, do not feel greatly pressured, do not foresee
important changes in the short term and would recommend to young people theinitiation of an academic career. Although there do exist variations with respect
to position, academic career path and “dedication”, which mean these data areless conclusive in younger academics and those of lower time dedication andposition, in the general levels the results are very significant. We have asserted
that these preferences and states of mind may be related to a variable notconsidered in this study – the improvement in salary which university teachers
received in recent years, after a situation of profound arrears in salaries inrelation to inflation.
These data are scarcely the tip of the iceberg which makes it necessary tocontinue investigation in greater depth. However it is possible at least to posesome questions that could guide future works. Have Argentine academics
adapted in their preferences to the academic model established at governmental
level? What would be their preferences if the policies were different? What
implications for the different functions of the university, especially for teaching,
may the preferences imply on the basis of the ideal “type” disseminated in recent
public policies? Is it possible to think of public policies which attend to adiversity of academic profiles and not to an ideal type which appears to be taking
shape? Would faculty be as satisfied with their careers as they are at present if
these policies were to change?

Acknowledgements
We wish to thank Martin Aiello and Gabriel Rebello, both members of theteam, for their collaboration with data collection and process.

387

References
Altbach, P. (2000). The changing academic workplace: comparative perspectives. Center forInternational Higher Education. Lynch School of Education, Boston College. Retrievedon March, 10 2006, from http://www.bc.edu/cihe/publications.
Altbach, P. (ed.) (2004). El Ocaso del Gurú. La Profesión Académica en el Tercer Mundo.
Cultura Universitaria / Serie Ensayo 77. Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana. México.
Araujo, S. (2003). Universidad, investigación e incentivos. La cara oscura. ed. Al Margen.
Becher, T. & Trowler, P (2001). Academic tribes and territories. Buckingham: Open
University Press. 2nd revised edition.
Bourdieu, P. (1983). Campo de Poder y Campo Intelectual. Folios, Buenos Aires.
Bourdieu, P. (1989). Homo Academicus. California: Stanford University Press.
Boyer, E.; Altbach, P. Y, & Whitelaw, M. J. (1994). The Academic Profession. An International
Perspective. Special Report. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching.
Cano, D. (1995). El Fondo para el Mejoramiento de la Calidad Universitaria (FOMEC). Una
estrategia del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional y el Banco Mundial para la reforma de la
educación superior argentina. En: Rev. del Centro para la Reforma Universitaria. Serie
Universidad en Debate No 1. Santa Fe.
Chiroleu, A. (2002). La Profesión Académica en Argentina. Boletín PROEALC. Síntesis
Especial America Latina. Mayo. Retrieved on April, 12 2007, from http://www2.uerj.br/proealc.
Fernández Lamarra, N. (2003). La educación Superior Argentina en debate. Situación,
problemas y perspectivas. Eudeba- IESALC- UNESCO, Bs. As.
Marquis, C. (2004). Universidades y Profesores en Argentina: Cambios y retos. En P. Altbach(ed.), El Ocaso del Gurú. La Profesión Académica en el Tercer Mundo. Cultura
Universitaria / Serie Ensayo 77. Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana. Mexico.
Ministerio de Cultura Y Educación, de la Nación (1994). Programa de Incentivos a losDocentes – Investigadores. Secretaría de Políticas Universitarias, Buenos Aires.
Secretaría de Políticas Universitarias (SPU) (1996, 1998, 1999-2000; 1999-2003, 2000-2004;
2005). Anuarios stadísticos. Retrieved on December, 3 2007, from http://www.me.gov.ar/
spu/Publicaciones/publicaciones.html.

Africa

389

The Academic Profession in South Africa in Timesof Change: portrait from the preliminary results of
the Changing Academic Profession (CAP) Research
Project

Charste C. Wolhuter ∗, Philip Higgs∗∗, Leonie G. Higgs*** and Isaac M.
Ntshoe****Introduction
South Africa is currently in the throes of an ambitious societal
reconstruction project, in which higher education has been assigned a major role.
Furthermore, since re-joining the international community in 1994, higher
education in South Africa has been subjected to the same changes as higher
education sectors worldwide. The academic profession is a key partner in thehigher education project, and their experience and input are pivotal for the
success of higher education.
The aim of this research is to determine how the South African academic
profession is experiencing their currently changing professional environment.
The paper commences with an outline of the historical development of higher
education in South Africa, followed by an exposition of the spectrum of changes
currently taking place. The authors applied the questionnaire of theinternational CAP (Changing Academic Profession) research project to a sampleof the South African academic profession. The paper reports on how the South
African academic profession is currently experiencing the following aspects of∗Professor, Faculty of Educational Sciences, North-West University, South Africa, e-mail:Charl.Wolhuter@nwu.ac.za∗∗
Professor, University of South Africa, South Africa, e-mail: higgsp@unisa.ac.za***
Professor, University of South Africa, South Africa, e-mail: higgslg@unisa.ac.za****
Professor, University of South Africa, South Africa, e-mail: ntshoim@unisa.ac.za

390
their professional environment, based on the results of the survey:- teaching activities- research activities- internationalisation and- relations with university management

Historical Context (till 1994)
The first university in South Africa was the University of Good Hope,founded in 1873 under the auspices of the then British colonial administration.
This university did no teaching, but prescribed syllabuses, conductedexaminations, and awarded degrees for teaching done at colleges, such as theSouth African College (Cape Town), and the Victoria College (Stellenbosch).
Act 12 of 1916 made provision for the establishment of a federal examining
university, to be called the University of South Africa (UNISA), located in
Pretoria. In time its constituent colleges became autonomous universities:
University of Stellenbosch (1916), University of Cape Town (South African
College, 1916), Witwatersrand University (1922), University of Pretoria (1930),
University of Natal (1949), University of the Orange Free State (1950), Rhodes
University (1951) and Potchefstroom University (1951). When its constituent
colleges became independent universities, UNISA became a correspondence
university (1951). All these institutions were meant to cater for the white
population.
Tertiary education for black South Africans commenced in 1916, when theSouth African Native College was established in Fort Hare. This institution
became autonomous in 1949, under the name of the University of Fort Hare.
1948 is a key date in the history of South Africa. In that year the National Partycame to power. It implemented a programme of rigorous de facto and de jure
racial segregation – ‘Apartheid’ policies (a typical colonial set-up, de facto racial
segregation had always been a characteristic of South African society). The
advocates of Apartheid believed that the separation of the races (and the various
ethnic groupings within the black race) would enable each grouping to develop toprosperity upon the basis, and along the lines, of their own cultures. For thispurpose ten autonomous states (so-called “homelands”) were created within theborders of South Africa, for the various ethnic groupings. Each was to have its
own government, school system, universities, etc.
Consequently, such
universities were created, each exclusively for students of a particular ethnic

391
group.
The idea of separate, segregated education systems and universities was
widely condemned among black South Africans as inferior education meant toperpetuate inequality and white domination (see Karis & Gerhart, 1977; Nkomo,
1990; Christie, 1991, pp.229-265). The South African government did not
succeed in selling its policies to the international community either. After 1961
(when the country ceded from the British Commonwealth and became an
independent republic), South Africa was subjected to a barrage of internationalsanctions and isolation measures directed at, for example, trade, economic,
political, diplomatic, cultural, sports and other measures. With regard to
universities, the international academic boycott was waged for three decades (ca.
1960-1990) as part of the international world’s protest against the segregation
policies of the South African government. Harricombe and Lancaster (1995,p.30) note that this boycott included the following:- a refusal of international scholars to travel to South Africa or to invite
South Africans abroad;- a refusal to publish South African manuscripts internationally;- a refusal of international scholars to collaborate with South African
scholars;- a refusal by some publishers to provide access to information (e.g., books,
software);- a denial of South African participation at international conferences;- a denial of access to South African academics by certain institutions
abroad;- a refusal to act as external examiners for theses at South African
universities.
(for a survey of the full extent and intensity of this academic boycott, theinterested reader is referred to the publication of Harricombe & Lancaster, 1995).

Current Changes
In 1994, 342 years of white minority government in South Africa ended. A
new political dispensation commenced, the basis of which was a new constitution
with a Bill of Human Rights widely hailed as one of the most democratic andmost progressive in the world. The ANC (African National Congress) took
over as ruling party from the National Party.
Since the change of government and the new socio-political dispensation in392
1994, South African academics have been facing three sets of changes:- a reintegration into the mainstream international academic community;- one unintended effect of the international academic isolation was that
South Africa had been kept aloof from changes taking place in theenvironment of academics abroad, such as increasing managerialism,
increased calls for accountability and increased measures of quality
control;- the exigencies of the new socio-political environment.
These three sets of changes will now be focused upon in turn.
A new educational dispensation in the changed socio-political context
In the first years after 1994, the ANC formulated a new education policy,
based upon the following principles: equalisation of educational opportunities,
desegregation, multiculturalism and democratisation (see Wolhuter, 1999, p.366).
The aim of this policy was directed at the economic development andmodernization of South Africa.
Equal educational opportunities
One of the rallying points of the socio-political turmoil which preceded the1994 political settlement was the segregated and unequal education system. In
1993 the gross tertiary education enrolment ratio in South Africa was 12.9%(aggregate figure) (Wolhuter, 1998, p.15). This aggregate figure masked big
differences: for the different racial groups, the figures were as follows: whites,
50.4%; Indians (i.e. South Africans of Indian descent), 30.4%; coloureds (South
Africans of mixed-racial descent), 9.7%; blacks, 11.1% (Wolhuter, 1998, p.15).
This policy meant that universities had to gear themselves for a surge in black
student enrolments after 1994. A problem was that the black primary andsecondary schools of the pre-1994 era offered the worst quality education inSouth Africa. This meant a surge of black students from schools that
ill-prepared them for tertiary study. The racial make-up of the South African
population (total 44.8 million) is as follows: whites, 10%; Indians, 2%;coloureds, 9%; blacks, 79% (Steyn, 2008).
Desegregation
In 1994, the various racially based education systems and theiradministrations were collapsed into one national Ministry of Education. In theSouth African context, desegregation would be very much a one-way movement

393
of blacks from the historically black educational institutions to the better
endowed historically white educational institutions. This meant that thehistorically white institutions had to gear themselves for a much more diverse
student body. Desegregation and equity also meant that the academic
profession (traditionally very white male dominated, even at the historically
black universities) would have to change to reflect the demographic make-up of
the South African population.
Multiculturalism
A criticism from the circles of the new rulers was that the pre-1994
education system was too Eurocentric, and that Africa’s cultural heritage wasneglected. In very radical quarters it was felt that the message was preachedthat African cultures were inferior, and the most extreme critics alleged thatcurricula contributed to the subjugation of blacks. Even curricula at university
level were thus criticized (e.g., see Jansen, ed., 1991).
Democratisation
The pre-1994 education system was also criticized as being too authoritarianand of thus fostering a culture of submission. In response, the new government
accepted the principle of democratization in education. This meant that all
stakeholders (teachers, parents, workers, students and the broader community)
would participate actively in decision-making on education.
Development
The government pursued an ambitious set of national development goals bymeans of education. These goals include:- economic goals: the eradication of poverty and the promotion of thecountry’s economic productivity and development;- nation building: moulding national unity in a country with a divided past;building a communal value system for a society characterised bydemocracy, equality, freedom, peace, justice tolerance and stability;- social: building a society free of racial, gender and other forms of unfair
discrimination, creating a socially-mobile society and the removal of
artificial hierarchies and obstructions in the way of progress.
Re-integration into the mainstream international academic community
The new political order, which commenced in 1994, meant that South394
African academics, after having been cut off from their colleagues abroad forsome thirty years, were once again welcome at international conferences, as
visiting professors and as research collaborators worldwide.
The force of international trends shaping a new academic environment
As mentioned above, one (unintended) effect of the international boycotts
waged against South Africa was that universities remained relatively isolated
from changes that affected universities elsewhere in the world. During theboycott years some radical changes took place abroad. These changes could, toa large extent, be traced back to the neo-liberal economic revolution which
commenced in the 1980s and gained ever increasing momentum in the 1990s.
The welfare state scaled down its range of activities and the capitalist or freemarket system was accepted globally. For the academic environment thismeant a persistent denudation of academic autonomy as business principles suchas accountability, quality control, managerialism and profitability were applied
to the running of universities and as governments (as the main sources of funds
to most universities) assumed ever more say in the affairs of universities(Wolhuter & Higgs, 2006, p.64). It should be mentioned that apart fromapplying pressure to conform to governmental segregation policies, in thepre-1994 era universities in South Africa enjoyed a measure of autonomy
probably unparalleled elsewhere in the world (Bundy, 2005).
While
management issues were the prerogative of a few incumbents in top management
positions, academicians enjoyed full autonomy on academic matters. Even therenowned British comparativist, Edmund J King, an outspoken critic of thepre-1994 government’s policies, lauded the autonomy enjoyed by South African
universities (King, 1979). After the advent of the new socio-politicaldispensation and after South Africa’s incorporation into the international
mainstream, the South African academic environment was confronted with thesechanges, not gradually as elsewhere in the world, but intensely and rapidly(Jansen, 2004; Bundy, 2005; Wolhuter et al., 2007a).

How the academic profession is experiencing current changes:
preliminary results from the CAP research project
Research Methodology
The CAP is an international research project, surveying the academic
profession in 22 countries. The questionnaire surveys the following aspects ofacademics’ lives: biographic particulars, teaching, research, international

395
activities, relations with university management, and job satisfaction. Being
part of the project, the authors applied the questionnaire to a representative
sample of 302 South African academics. This paper reports on the results.
Biographic Particulars
Of the respondents, 50% were male and 47% female, while 3% declined todisclose their gender. As this comes close to the official South African
aggregate figure (which reports 50.3% of all faculty at tertiary education
institutions in South Africa as being female, UNESCO, 2007) it shows that the
sample was representative (Of the respondents who did disclose their gender 142
of 293, or 48.4% were female). This also means that the proportion of female
academics in South Africa is one of the highest in the world (cf. Higgs et al.,
2004; Welch, 1997).
The average age of respondents was 49.3 years. When compared to theresults of a study, six years ago, that applied to South Africa the questionnaire
used by the Carnegie International Investigation into the Academic Profession, it
was found that the average age of the South African academic profession at thatstage was 43.4 years (cf. Wolhuter, et al., 2006, p.9), the results of this survey
confirm the observation frequently made, namely that the South African
academic profession is ageing.
Qualifications and higher education experience
Almost half (48.3%) of respondents held a doctorate. For a developing
country, this is quite high. In Mexico, like South Africa an upper-middle
income country, 58% of all faculty hold as their highest degree a licensure (The
Mexican licensure is a 4-5 year undergraduate program) (Galaz-Fontez et al.,2007, p.56). On average, the South African academic has 15.2 years work
experience in the higher education sector; 39.7% of respondents have spent their
entire higher education working career at one institution, 31.9% have experienceof two institutions, while 28.4% have been employed by more than two higher
education institutions. As many academic faculty are employed by institutions
where they had been students, the 39.7% who have been employed by one higher
institution only point to a high incidence of the academically pernicious
phenomenon of inbreeding.
Teaching Activities
During the academic year, when classes are in session, respondents taught
on average 21.0 hours per week. When compared with the results of the396
Carnegie survey, this represents a significant increase in the past six years. The
study using the Carnegie questionnaire, undertaken six years ago, found that
South African Academics spend a mean of 12.9 hours per week teaching(Wolhuter et al., 2006, p.10). The South African mean is now on a par with theinternational norm: the average in the fourteen countries surveyed by theInternational Survey of the Academic Profession (Carnegie Investigation) was
22.2 (Altbach & Lewis, 1996, p.21). The median undergraduate class size
reported by this present survey is 195.0. This too represents a significant
increase from what was shown by the investigation six years ago (cf. Wolhuter etal., 2006, p.11). Academics in South Africa find the quality of student intakes
problematic. The average response on a five point scale ranging from 1:strongly agree, to 3: neutral, to 5 strongly disagree, to the statement “you spend
more time than you would like teaching basic skills due to student deficiencies”
was 2.14.
Research activities
In the three year period prior to the survey the average respondent has
authored or co-authored 1.45 books, edited or co-edited 1.03 books, published3.93 articles in an academic book or journal and presented 4.56 papers at
scholarly conferences. Compared to the international norm, these are quite low
figures. In participating countries of the Carnegie investigation, available
average responses to the question on how many articles respondents havepublished in the three year period prior to the survey, in an academic book orscholarly journal range from 4.3 in the case of Australia (Sheenan & Welch,1996) to 7.7 in the case of the Netherlands (Geurts et al., 1996). Fromapplication of the Carnegie investigation in South Africa, the respondents
indicated that factors influencing their research output included the availabilityof research funding, facilities and resources for research but, surprisingly, not the
numbers of students enrolled in their classes (Wolhuter & Higgs, 2008).
Internationalisation
The study employing the Carnegie questionnaire six years ago, found that
whereas the effects of the international academic boycott were still perceptible in
the ten years period before that investigation (1991-2000), when looking at thethree years prior to the study (i.e. 1998-2000), the effects were more than wiped
out, and the South African academic profession had become one of the mostinternationalised in the world (Wolhuter & Higgs, 2004). For example, on
average, South Africa’s respondents had published articles or books in another397
country 3.75 times during the three years prior to the survey (1998-2000) and3.67 times during the ten years prior to the survey (1991-2000) (Wolhuter &Higgs, 2004). In the 14 countries of the Carnegie survey, the corresponding
averages were 1.3 and 4.0 (Altbach & Lewis, 1996, p.37). The present CAP
survey did not ask the same questions. But results that only 11.62% and12.77% of respondents had published a book or article in respectively the three
years and ten years period prior to the survey do point to a sharp drop ininternational activities, which might be related to the exigencies of increasing
managerialism, for example making access to funding for the attendance atinternational conferences much more difficult than it used to be a few years ago.
Relations with management
The study by means of the Carnegie questionnaire, done in 2000, came tothe conclusion that South African academics had mildly positive relationships
with university governance (Wolhuter et al., 2007b). Since then other researchsuch as that of Webster & Mosoetsa (2002) came to more negative conclusions.
This present research (CAP survey) confirms the results of Webster & Mosoetsa(2002) and in fact portrays a mirror image of the results from the study in 2000.
South African academics now appear to have slightly negative relations withmanagement. On a five point semantic differentiation scale, ranging from 1:strongly disagree, to 3: neutral, to 5: strongly agree, their average responses tothe following statements were as follows:- 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- The administration is supporting academic freedom

:
:
:
:

3.49
3.16
2.92
3.41

These responses indicate the negative effects of insidious but growing
managerialism at South African universities.

Conclusion
Contextually related pressures such as the influx of poorly preparedstudents, impact negatively on the South African academic profession.
Changes which are part of international trends, such as managerialism, are being
experienced negatively by the South African academic profession. Both thesesets of factors (international trends and South African context-specific factors)
are probably factors behind the large (and increasingly larger) classes and high398
and rising lecture loads which South African academics have to cope with.
South African academics seem to become less and less internationalized. The
result of all these is a low research output and this portrays a disturbing pictureof the quality of scholarship at South African universities. A research projectsuch as CAP is therefore extremely timely, providing information necessary tosecure for South African academia the turf for pursuing the noble ideals
associated with higher learning.

References
Altbach, P.G., & Lewis, L.S. (1996). The academic profession in international perspective. In
P.G. Altbach (ed.), The international academic profession: Portraits of fourteen countries.
Princeton, New Jersey: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Bundy, C. (2005). Global patterns, local options? Some implications for South Africa ofinternational changes in higher education. Perspectives in Education, 23(2), 85-98.
Christie, P. (1991). The Right to Learn: The struggle for education in South Africa. Ravan
Press: Braamfontein.
Galaz-Fontez, J.F., Padilla-Gonzáles, L., & Gil-Antón, M. (2007). The Increasing Expectationof Relevance for Higher Education and the Academic Profession: Some Reflections on
the Case of Mexico. In M. Kogan, & U. Techler (eds.), Key Challenges to the Academic
Profession (pp.47-62). Kassel: INCHER.
Geurts, P.A., Maasen, P.A.M., & Van Vught, F.A. (1996). The Dutch professoriate. In P.G.
Altbach (ed.), The international academic profession: Portraits of fourteen countries.
Princeton, New Jersey: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Harricombe, R.J., & Lancaster, E.W. (1995). Out in the Cold: Academic Boycotts and theIsolation of South Africa. Arlington: Information Resources Press.
Higgs, L.G., Higgs, P., & Wolhuter, C.C. (2004). Re-thinking gender (in)equality within theSouth African academic Profession. South African Journal of Higher Education, 18(1),273-289.
Jansen, J.D. (2004). Changes and continuities in South Africa’s higher education system, 19942004. In L. Chisholm (ed.), Changing Class: Education and Social Change in
Post-Apartheid South Africa. Pretoria: HSRC Press.
Jansen, J.D. (ed.) (1991). Knowledge and Power in South Africa: Critical perspectives acrossthe disciplines. Braamfontien: Skotaville.
Karis, T., & Gerhart, T.M. (1977). From Protest to Challenge: A documentary history ofAfrican politics in South Africa: 1882-1964, volume 3: 1953-1964. Stanford: Hoover
Institution Press.

399
King, E.J. (1979). An educational way ahead for South Africa? International Review of
Education, 24, 478-499.
Nkomo, M. (ed.) (1990). Pedagogy of Domination: Toward a democratic education in South
Africa. Trenton, NJ.: Africa World Press.
Sheehan, B.A., & Welch, A.R. (1996). The Australian academic profession. In P.G. Altbach,(ed.), The international academic profession: Portraits of fourteen countries. Princeton,
New Jersey: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Steyn, S.C. (2008). The education system of South Africa. In H.J. Steyn, & C.C. Wolhuter(eds.), Education Systems and Challenges of the 21st Century. Keurkopie: Noordbrug.
(Forthcoming).
UNESCO (2007). Reports. Retrieved November 2, 2007, from http://stats.uis.unesco.org.
Webster, E., & Masoetsa, S. (2002). At the chalk face: managerialism and the changing
academic workplace, 1995-2000. Transformation, 48, 59-82.
Welch, A.R. (1997). The peripatetic professor: The internationalization of the academic
profession. Higher Education, 34, 323-345.
Wolhuter, C.C. (1998). Spektropie van die Suid-Afrikaanse onderwysstelsel binne dieinternasionale ry van nasionale onderwysstelsels. Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir
Opvoedkunde 18(1), 9-19.
Wolhuter, C.C. (1999). Sociaal-wetenschappelijke literatuur over onderwijs in Zuid-Afrika:
Van verzuiling tot eensgezindheid vanuit verscheidenheid. Pedagogische Studiën
(Netherlands), 76, 361-377.
Wolhuter, C.C., & Higgs, L.G. (2004). How internationalized is the South African academic
profession. In J. Van der Elst, & C. C.Wolhuter (eds.), Internationalization and humanresource development in the African Union: Challenges for the tertiary sector(Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of IEASA, International Education
Association of South Africa, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 3-6
September 2003) (pp. 262-271). Noordbrug: The Platinum Press.
Wolhuter, C.C., Higgs, L.G., (2006). The academic profession in South Africa. Southern
African Review of Education, 12(1), 63-76.
Wolhuter, C.C., & Higgs, L.G. (2008). The Academic Profession in South African in
Comparative Perspective. In C.C. Wolhuter (ed.), Access, Participation and
Democratization in African Education (pp.282-297). (Proceedings of the 2005 SACHESAnnual Conference, University of Dar Es Salaam, 16-19 September 2005).
Potchefstroom: C.C. Wolhuter.
Wolhuter, C.C., Higgs, L.G., & Higgs, P. (2006). The South African Academic Profession andTransformation of Higher Education. Higher Education Review, 38(2), 1-20.
Wolhuter, C.C., Higgs, L.G., & Higgs, P. (2007a). The Changing Academic Profession in South
Africa. In W. Locke, & U. Teichler (eds.), The Changing Conditions for Academic Work

400
and Careers in Selected Countries (pp.77-91). Kassel: INCHER.
Wolhuter, C.C., Van der Walt, J.L., Higgs, L.G., & Higgs, P. (2007b). Die Akademiese
Professie in Suid-Afrika se Belewing van die Huidige Rekonstruksie van die Samelewing
en van die Hoër Onderwys. Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe, 47(4), 501-515.

Conclusion

401

Preliminary Findings and Discussions about theCharacteristics of the Changing Academic Professionin Fifteen Countries and Regions: an international,
comparative and quantitative perspective

Futao Huang∗

From January 28-29, an international meeting on The Changing Academic
Profession (CAP) in International, Comparative and Quantitative Perspectives
was organized by the Research Institutes for Higher Education (RIHE) of
Hiroshima University and of Hijiyama University in Hiroshima as part of the
Changing Academic Profession Project.
Currently there are 22 countries involved in the CAP project. They
include countries from the five continents: Asia and the Pacific, Africa, Europe,
North America and Latin America. The following countries have conducted or
are well into the process of conducting national surveys and studies: Argentina,
Australia, Brazil, Canada, China and Hong Kong, Finland, France, Germany,
Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Norway, Portugal, Romania, South Africa, theNetherlands, the UK, and the US; New Zealand and South Korea may also
conduct national studies. This is the largest survey of the academic profession
ever undertaken by RIHE. At the meeting, 19 speakers from Argentina,
Australia, Brazil, Canada, China and Hong Kong, Finland, Germany, Italy, Japan,
Malaysia, Mexico, Portugal, the UK, and the USA made presentations.
Contributions were also made by 12 foreign participants, including one fromSouth Korea. In addition, over 80 Japanese academics from various institutions,
including staff and graduate students from RIHE, were present at the meeting.
In the year 2006, two international conferences concerning the academic
profession were organized by RIHE. The first was mainly concerned with thecontexts, driving forces, major aspects and specific characteristics relating to the∗Professor, RIHE, Hiroshima University, Japan, e-mail: futao@hiroshima-u.ac.jp

402changing academic profession in North America, Europe and some Asian
countries. The second, with a special focus on Asian countries, was mainly
concerned with issues arising from reconstruction of university visions and themission of the academic profession. The CAP project is now to examine thenature and extent of the changes experienced by the academic profession inrecent years through the national surveys in individual countries and in someregions. The extent of change will be considered through comparison with thesimilar Carnegie survey in 1991, comparison of responses by different
generations of academics, and by perceptions of change. The major purpose ofthis meeting was to discuss the issues and share ideas concerning the following
three aspects.
1. Key facts and statements about the characteristics and the actual situation of
the academic profession in the participating countries.
2. Views on the nature and the extent of the changes experienced by theacademic profession in recent years, with a focus on the relevance of theacademy's work, the internationalization of the academy, and recent
managerial innovations.
3. Comparison of the responses in 2007 with those in 1992 by those countries
that participated in the earlier survey of the academic profession.
Based on these aspects, the organizers arranged two keynote speeches, toprecede the country reports, and then allocated time for discussion in order to
identify themes shared across the country reports. While much of the attention
was focused on the country reports, generous time was also devoted to
discussion of the issue of developing and completing the future collaborative
work now to be undertaken by the participating countries.
From an international comparative perspective, some major similarities anddifferences existing in the academic professions of the participating countries are
already evident. A vast majority of participating countries reported that in thepast years, there has been:- a growing percentage of academic staff with higher degrees, especially
doctorates;- an increased introduction of fixed-term appointments;- high job satisfaction;- increased cumbersome administrative processes and a top-down management
style;

403- increased pressures on faculty, especially on young faculty in the research
arena; and- feminization, especially in countries such as the USA, the UK, Japan and
Mexico.
In contrast, there also exist distinguishing differences among the countries.
For example, on the one hand, there has been an increase in the time spent onteaching, especially at undergraduate level, in Japan, Mexico, the USA, andGermany (notably by non-professorial staff); on the other hand, in Argentina,
and Germany (notably by university professors) it is reported that more time has
been devoted to research activities; yet a third pattern is observed in the UK,
where academic staff tend to emphasize both activities. With regard tointernationalization of the academy, there has been more internationalization in
Canada, Australia and Brazil, whereas in the USA, the UK, and China, lessinternationalization of the academy was reported.
During the two-day meeting, the importance of seeking solutions to threemajor issues facing the participating countries through the collaborative efforts
was emphasized. The first is how to achieve a common understanding of somekey terms and factors concerning the academic profession in the participating
countries. The second is how to explain some of the key factors affecting thesimilar changes and the differences in changes in the academic professions in theparticipating countries. The third is how to combine the national data sets into
an international data set in order to facilitate a ‘real’ international comparative
study of the academic profession across the participating countries.
Apparently, most countries are still in the very early stages of analyzing
their survey data. The main findings that were presented by the speakers fromthose countries are relatively simple and their country reports were very
preliminary. Moreover, the focus for the research project, methodology, andexpectations varies significantly among the different countries. However, aclearer picture of the changing academic profession in the participating countries
and regions is already appearing in the resultant international comparative andquantitative perspectives. Most importantly, the main value of this meeting at
Hiroshima has provided stimulation as different groups start to consider
collaborative analytic projects. This provides a useful base for discussions on
the subsequent program. In a major sense, the meeting was timely, stimulating
and yielded fruitful outcomes.

Appendices405

Appendix 1:
The Changing Academic Profession: Questionnaire
Final Version 21 November 2006
A.

Career and Professional Situation

A1

For each of your degrees, please indicate the year of completion and the country inwhich you obtained it.
DegreeYear

First degree [NATCAT]@@@@

Yes @ No @Second degree(if applicable)[NATCAT]@@@@Yes @ No @Doctoral degree (ifapplicable)[NATCAT]@@@@Yes @ No @Post-doctoral degree(if applicable)[NATCAT]@@@@Yes @ No @A2

Earned in country of
current employment

If no, please specify country........................................................................................

........................................................................................

........................................................................................

........................................................................................

Please, identify the academic discipline or field of your…
Check one in each column

HighestDegreeCurrent
Acad. Unit

Current
Teaching

1

@

1

@

1

@

Teacher training and education science

2

@

2

@

2

@

Humanities and arts

3

@

3

@

3

@

Social and behavioural 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

@

Other: (please specify) ............................................................................................................

13

@

13

@

13

@

Not applicable(please specify)

406
A3

How would you characterize the training you received in your doctoral degree?
(If you do not hold a doctoral degree: Please go to question A4)

1@

You were required to take a prescribed set of courses

2@

You were required to write a thesis or dissertation3@

You received intensive faculty guidance for your research

4@

You chose your own research topic

5@

You received a scholarship or fellowship6@

You received an employment contract during your studies (for teaching or research)

7@

You received training in instructional skills or learned about teaching methods

8@

You were involved in research projects with faculty or senior researchers

9@

You served on an institutional or departmental (unit) committee

A4

Since your first degree, how long have you been employed in the following? [If “0,” soindicate]

Check all that apply

Full time

Part time@@@ @ Higher education institutions@@@ @ Research institutes@@@ @ (Other) Government or public sector institutions@@@ @ (Other) Industry or private sector institutions@@@ @ Self-employed

you reported some non-academic employment, since how many years do you work in academe without@ @ @ @ Ifinterimphases of employment in other occupational areas?

A5

By how many institutions have you been employed since yourFirst
degreeHighestdegree@ @ @ @ Higher education institutions or research institutes@ @ @ @ Other institutions (including self-employment)
A6

Please indicate the following@@@@

Year of your first full-time appointment (beyond research and teaching assistant) in the higher
education/research sector@@@@

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 many years have you interrupted your service at your current institution for family reasons ,personal leave or full-time study? [If “0,” so indicate]

406

407
A7 How is your employment situation in the current academic year at your higher
education institution/research institute? [Check one only]1@ Full-time employed2@ Part-time employed,

3@ Part-time with payment according to work tasks

4@ Other (please specify) ..........................................................................................................................................................

@ @ % of full-time

A8

Do you work for an additional employer or do additional remunerated work in thecurrent academic year?

1

@

No

2

@

In addition to your current employer, you also work at another research institute or higher education institution

3@

In addition to your current employer, you also work at a business organization outside of academe

4@

In addition to your current employer, you also work at a non-profit organization or government entity outside ofacademe5@

In addition to your current employer, you are also self-employed.

6@

Other: ..................................................................................................................................................................................
(please specify)

A9

How would you describe your current institution?

@

NATCATs to identify a) Higher education institution or research institute and b) type of higher education institution andc) type of research institution

Check one only

A10 What is your academic rank (If you work in a research institutions with ranks differingfrom those at higher education institutions, please choose the rank most closely
corresponding to yours)?
1@

NATCAT

2@

NATCAT

3@

NATCAT

4@

NATCAT

5@

NATCAT

6@

NATCAT

7@

NATCAT

8@

Other: ...............................................................................................................................................................................
(please specify)

408
A11 What is the duration of your current employment contract at your higher education
institution or research institute? [Check only one]
Check only one
1@

Permanently employed (tenured)2@

Continuously employed (no preset term, but no guarantee of permanence)3@

Fixed-term employment with permanent/continuous employment prospects (tenure-track)4@

Fixed-term employment without permanent/continuous employment prospects

5@

Other: ..................................................................................................................................................................................
(please specify)

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

@@@@Your current higher education institution/research institute [NATCAT: Currency and number of boxes]@@@@

All other concurrent employers[NATCAT: Currency and number of boxes@@@@

Other income (e.g. self-employment) [NATCAT: Currency and number of boxes]

A13 During the current academic year, have you done any of the following?
Check all that apply
1@Served as a member of national/international scientific committees/boards/bodies

2@Served a peer reviewer (e.g. for journals, research sponsors, institutional evaluations)

3@

Served as an editor of journals/book series

4@

Served as an elected officer or leader in professional/academic associations/organizations

5@

Served as an elected officer or leader of unions

6@

Been substantially involved in local, national or international politics

7@

Been a member of a community organizations or participated in community-based projects

8@

Worked with local, national or international social service agencies

9@

Other: ..................................................................................................................................................................................
(please specify)

A14 Within the last five years, have you considered a major change in your job? And did you
take concrete actions to make such a change? [If yes, check all that apply in bothcolumns A and B. If no, so indicate in column A and skip to B1]
Considered

Concreteaction taken

1

@

1

@

To a management position in your higher education/research institution

2

@

2

@

To an academic position in another higher education/research institute within the country

3

@

3

@

To an academic position in another country

4

@

4

@

To work outside higher education/research institutes

5@

No, I have not considered making any major changes in my job

408

409
B.

General Work Situation and Activities

B1 Considering all your professional work, how many hours do you spend in a typical weekon each of the following activities? [If you are not teaching during the current academic
year, please reply to the second column only.]
Hours per week
Hours per week
when classes are when classes are
in session
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 experiments, fieldwork)@@@@

Service (services to clients and/or patients, unpaid consulting, public or voluntary
services)@@@@

Administration (committees, department meetings, paperwork)@@@@

Other academic activities (professional activities not clearly attributable to any of thecategories above)

B2

Regarding your own preferences, do your interests lie primarily in teaching or in
research?
Check only one

1@ Primarily in teaching2@ In both, but leaning towards teaching3@ In both, but leaning towards research4@ Primarily in research

B3

At this institution, how would your evaluate each of the following facilities, resources,
or personnel you need to support your work?
Poor

Excellent
1

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

410
B4 Please indicate the degree to which each of the following affiliations is important to you.
Very
important1

Not at allimportant
2

3

4

5

@ @ @ @ @My academic discipline/field@ @ @ @ @My department (at this institution)@ @ @ @ @My institution

B5 Please indicate your views on the following
Strongly
DisagreeStrongly
Agree
1

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 hardly compatible with each other@ @ @ @ @Faculty in my discipline have a professional obligation to apply their knowledge to problems insociety

B6 How would you rate your overall satisfaction with your current job?
Very high1Very low
2

3

4

5

@ @ @ @@

B7 Since you started your career, have the overall working conditions in higher education
and research institutes improved or declined?
Very much
improved
1

Very muchdeteriorated
2

3

4

5

@ @ @ @ @Working conditions in higher education@ @ @ @ @Working conditions in research institutes

410

411
C.

Teaching (Refer to the current academic year or the previous academic year (if you
do not teach in this academic year). If you do not/did not teach in this or the previous
academic year go to section D)

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
Percent of
instruction
time

Approximate
average numberof students percourse@@@ @ @ (NATCAT) Undergraduate programs@@@ @ @ (NATCAT) Master programs@@@ @ @ (NATCAT) Doctoral programs@@@ @ @ (NATCAT) Continuing professional education programs@@@ @ @ Others

C2 During the current (or previous) academic year, have you been involved in any of thefollowing teaching activities?
Check all that apply
1@

Classroom instruction/lecturing

2@

Individualized instruction

3@

Learning in projects/project groups

4@

Practice instruction/ laboratory work

5@

ICT-based learning/computer-assisted learning

6@

Distance education

7@

Development of course material

8@

Curriculum/program development

9@Face-to-face interaction with students outside of class

10@

Electronic communications (e-mail) with students

C3 Does your institution set quantitative load targets or regulatory expectations forindividual faculty for the following:
Check all that apply1@

Number of hours in the classroom

2@

Number of students in your classes

3@

Number of graduate students for supervision

4@

Percentage of students passing exams

5@Time for student consultation

412
C4 Please indicate your views on the following:
Strongly
agree
1Strongly
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

C5 During the current (or previous) academic year, are you teaching any courses.
Check all that apply
1@

Abroad2@

in a language different from the language of instruction at your current institution

D.

Research (Refer to the current academic year or the previous academic year (if you
are not active in research in this academic year). If you are not/were not active inresearch in this or the previous academic year go to section E.)

D1 How would you characterize your research efforts undertaken during this (or theprevious) academic year?
Yes

No

1

@

1

@

Are you working individually/without collaboration on any of your research projects?

2

@

2

@

Do you have collaborators in any of your research projects?

3

@

3

@

Do you collaborate with persons at other institutions in your country?

4

@

4

@

Do you collaborate with international colleagues?

412

413
D2 How would you characterize the emphasis of your primary research this (or theprevious) academic year?
Very much
1

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@ @ @ @ @Multi-/interdisciplinary

D3 Have you been involved in any of the following research activities during this 9or theprevious) academic year?
Check all that apply
1@ Preparing experiments, inquiries etc.

2

@ Conducting experiments, inquiries etc.

3

@ Supervising a research team or graduate research assistants

4@ Writing academic papers that contain research results or findings

5@ Involved in the process of technology transfer

6@ Answering calls for proposals or writing research grants

7@ Managing research contracts and budgets

8@ Purchasing or selecting equipment and research supplies

414
D4 How many of the following scholarly contributions have you completed in the past three
years?
(Number completed in the past three years)@@

Scholarly books you authored or co-authored@@

Scholarly books you edited or co-edited@@

Articles 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): ..............................................................................................................................................
(please specify)

D5 Which percentage of your publications in the last three years were

@ @ @ published in a language different from the language of instruction at your current institution@ @ @ co-authored with colleagues located in the country of your current employment@ @ @ co-authored with colleagues located in other (foreign)countries@ @ @ published in a foreign country@ @ @ On-line or electronically published@ @ @ Peer-reviewed

414

415
D6 Please indicate your views on the following
Strongly
agree
1Strongly
disagree
2

3

4

5

@ @ @ @ @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@ @ @ @ @Interdisciplinary 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(targeted) 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

D7 In the current (or previous) academic year, which percentage of the funding for yourresearch came from

@ @ @ Your own institution@ @ @ Public research funding agencies@ @ @ Government entities@ @ @ Business firms or industry@ @ @ Private not-for-profit foundations/agencies@ @ @ Others: ....................................................................................................................................................................
(please specify)

416
D8 In the current (or previous) academic year, which percentage of the external funding foryour research came from

@ @ @ National organizations/entities@ @ @ International organizations/entities(please specify)E.

Management

E1 At your institution, which actor has the primary influence on each of the following
decisions ( please check only one column on each decision)?
Government orexternal
stakeholders

Institutional
managers

Academic Unit
managers

Facultycommittees/
boardsIndividual
faculty

Students

@

@

@

@

@

@

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

E2 How influential are you, personally, in helping to shape key academic policies?
Veryinfluential

Somewhat
influential

A little
influential

Not at all
influential

Notapplicable

@

@

@

@

@

At the level of the department or similar unit

@

@

@

@

@

At the level of the faculty, school or similar unit

@

@

@

@

@

At the institutional level

416

417
E3 By whom is your teaching, research, and service regularly evaluated?
Check all that applyYourteachingYour
research

Your
service

1

@

1

@

1

@

Your peers in your department or unit

2

@

2

@

2

@

The head of your department or unit

3

@

3

@

3

@

Members of other departments or units at this institution

4

@

4

@

4

@

Senior administrative staff at this institution

5

@

5

@

5

@

Your students

6

@

6

@

6

@

External reviewers

7

@

7

@

7

@

Yourself (formal self-assessment)

8

@

8

@

8

@

No one at or outside my institution

E4 At my institution there is…
Strongly
agree
1Strongly
disagree
2

3

4

5

@ @ @ @ @… 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 towards teaching activities@ @ @ @ @… A supportive attitude of administrative staff towards research activities@ @ @ @ @…professional development for administrative/management duties for individual faculty

E5 Please indicate your views on the following issues.
Strongly
agree
1Strongly
disagree
2

3

4

5

@ @ @ @ @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@ @ @ @ @Students should have a stronger voice in determining policy that affects them

@ @ @ @ @The administration supports academic freedom

418
E6 To what extent does your institution emphasize the following practices?
Very much
1

Not at all
2

3

4

5

@ @

@ @ @

Performance based allocation of resources to academic units

@ @

@ @ @

Evaluation 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 theinstitution

@ @

@ @ @

Encouraging individuals, businesses, foundations etc. to contribute more to higher education

418

419
F.

Personal Background

F1 What is your gender?
1@ Male2@ Female

F2 Year of birth@ @ @ @ Year
F3 What is your familial status
1@ Married/partner

2@ Single

3@ Other: ...................................................................................................................................................................................
(please specify)

F4 If married/partner, is she/he employed?
1@ Yes, full-time2@ Yes, part-time

3

@ No

F5 Is your spouse/partner also an academic?
1

@ Yes

2

@ No

F6 Do you have children living with you?
1

@ Yes, 1 child2@ Yes, 2 children

3@ Yes, 3 or more children

4

@ No

F7 Did you ever interrupt your employment in order to provide child or elder care in the
home?
1

@

Yes

2

@

No

@ @ If yes, for how many years?

420
F8 What is your parents’ highest, and if applicable, partner’s highest education level?
FatherMotherPartner

1

@

1

@

1

@

Entered and/or completed tertiary education

2

@

2

@

2

@

Entered and/or completed secondary education

3

@

3

@

3

@

Entered and/or completed primary education

4

@

4

@

4

@

No formal education

5

@

5

@

5

@

Not applicable

F9 What was/is your nationality/citizenship and your country of residence
CitizenshipCountry of Residence

At birth............................................................................... ........................................................................................
At the time of yourfirst degree............................................................................... ........................................................................................

Currently............................................................................... ........................................................................................
(please specify)(please specify)

F10 What is first language/mother tongue?

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
(please specify)

F11 Which language do you primarily employ in teaching?

1@ First language/mother tongue

2@ Other: ...................................................................................................................................................................................
(please specify)

F12 Which language do you primarily employ in research?

1@ First language/mother tongue

2@ Other: ...................................................................................................................................................................................
(please specify)

F13 How many years since the award of your first degree have you spent…

@ @ …in the country of your first degree@ @ …in the country in which you are currently employed, if different from the country of your first degree@ @ …in other countries (outside the country of your first degree and current employment)

420

421

Appendix 2:

Conference Program

The Changing Academic Professionin International Comparative and Quantitative Perspectives
Date: January 28-29, 2008
Venue: Hiroshima Garden Palace

Monday, January 28
8:30 Registration
Opening Ceremony
9:00 - 9:20
Opening Remarks
Toshimasa Asahara, President, Hiroshima University, Japan
Susumu Takahashi, President, Hijiyama University, Japan
Shinichi Yamamoto, Director & Professor, Research Institutefor Higher Education, Hiroshima University, Japan
Akira Arimoto, Director & Professor, Research Institute forHigher Education, Hijiyama University, Japan
9:20 - 9:30
Orientation
Futao Huang, Professor, Research Institute for Higher
Education, Hiroshima University, Japan
Session 1: Morning Session
Chairs:Motohisa Kaneko, Dean & Professor, Graduate School of
Education, The University of Tokyo, Japan
Ulrich Teichler, Professor & former Rector, International
CentreforHigher
Education
Research
Kassel(INCHER-Kassel), University of Kassel, Germany
9:30 - 10:00
Keynote Speech 1“International Implications of the Changing Academic
Profession in Japan”
Akira Arimoto, Director & Professor, Research Institute forHigher Education, Hijiyama University, Japan
10:00 - 10:30
Keynote Speech 2“What we can learn from International Indicators about thecontext for Change in the Academic Profession”
William K. Cummings, Professor, Graduate School of
Education and Human Development, The George Washington
University, USA422
10:30 - 10:40
10:40 - 10:50
10:50 - 11:20

11:20 - 11:50

11:50 - 12:20
12:20 - 13:20

Q&A
Coffee Break*** Country Reports (North America) ***Presentation 1: Canada“The Changing Academic Profession in Canada: Exploring
Themes of Relevance, Internationalization, and Management”
Amy S. Metcalfe, Assistant Professor, Higher Education
Department of Educational Studies, Faculty of Education,
University of British Columbia, Canada
Presentation 2: USA“The American Professorate in an Age of Globalization”
Martin Finkelstein, Professor, College of Education and
Human Services, Seton Hall University, USA
Discussion
Lunch

Session 2: Afternoon Session
Chairs:Takekazu Ehara, Professor, Center for Development andSupport of Higher Education, Ritsumeikan University, Japan
V. Lynn Meek, Director & Professor, Centre for Higher
Education Management and Policy (CHEMP), University of
New England, Australia*** Country Reports (European Countries) ***13:20 - 13:50
Presentation 3: UK“The UK Academic Profession: still stratified after all theseyears?”
William D. Locke, Principle Policy Analyst and Assistant
Director, Centre for Higher Education Research andInformation (CHERI), The Open University, UK
13:50 - 14:20
Presentation 4: Finland“Report from Finland”
Seppo Hцlttд, Professor & Head of Higher Education Group,
Department of Management Studies, University of Tampere,
Finland
14:20 - 14:50
Presentation 5: Norway“Report from Norway”
Svein Kyvik, Senior Researcher, NIFU STEP Studies in423

14:50 - 15:20

15:20 - 15:30
15:30 - 16:00

16:00 - 16:30

16:30 - 17:00

17:00 - 17:30
18:00 - 20:00

Innovation, Research and Education, Norway
Presentation 6: Germany“Changes in the Situation and Views of Junior Academic Staff
in Germany”
Ulrich Teichler, Professor & former Rector, INCHER-Kassel,
University of Kassel, Germany
Oliver Bracht, Research Associate, INCHER-Kassel,
University of Kassel, Germany
Coffee Break
Presentation 7: Romania“Report from Romania”
Remus Pricopie, Dean & Associate Professor, College ofCommunication and Public Relations, National University of
Political Studies and Public Administration, Romania
Presentation 8: Portugal“Report from Portugal”
Manuel Graça, Researcher, Centre for Research on Higher
Education Policies (CIPES), Portugal
Presentation 9: Italy“The Academic Profession in Italy: first results from the‘Changing Academic Profession’ survey”
Michele Rostan, Director, Center for Study and Research on
Higher Education Systems, University of Paria, Italy
Discussion
Reception at Hiroshima Garden PalaceMC:
Jun Oba, Associate Professor, Research Institute for Higher
Education, Hiroshima University, Japan

Tuesday, January 29
8:30 Registration
Session 3: Morning Session
Chairs:Aya Yoshida, Professor, National Institute for Multimedia
Education, Japan
William D. Locke, Principle Policy Analyst & Assistant
Director, CHERI, The Open University, UK424

9:00 - 9:30

9:30 - 10:00

10:00 - 10:30

10:30 - 10:45
10:45 - 11:15

11:15 - 11:45*** Country Reports (Asia-Pacific Region) ***Presentation 10: Australia“Report on Changes to the Academic Profession in Australia”
V. Lynn Meek, Director & Professor, CHEMP, University of
New England, Australia
Leo Goedegeburre, Associate Professor, CHEMP, Universityof New England, Australia
Hamish Coates, Senior Research Fellow, Australian Council
for Educational Research, Australia
Presentation 11: Malaysia“Governance and Decision-Making Relating to Academic
Activities: the case of Higher Education Institutions in
Malaysia”
Sirat Morshidi, Director & Professor, National Higher
Education Research Institute (IPPTN), Universiti Sains
Malaysia, Malaysia
Muhamadbin Jantan, Professor, Center for Policy Research,
Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia
Presentation 12: China, Hong Kong
“Changing Times for the Academic Profession in China’s
Hong Kong: a preliminary look at the results of the Second
Survey”
Gerard A. Postiglione, Professor, Faculty of Education,
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong , China(Co-authored by Li-fang Zhang and Hei Hang Hayes Tang)
Coffee Break
Presentation 13: China (1)“Development of the Academic Profession in China: based on
a National Survey”
Hong Shen, Vice Dean & Professor, Graduate School of
Education, Huazhong University of Science and Technology,
China
Presentation 14: China (2)“The Analyses of Educational Backgrounds and career pathsof faculty in Higher Education Institutions in Beijing”
Fengqiao Yan, Professor, Graduate School of Education,
Peking University, China

425
11:45 - 12:30

12:30 - 13:00
13:00 - 14:00

Presentation 15: Japan“The Changing Academic Profession in an Era of University
Reform in Japan”
Atsunori Yamanoi, Dean & Professor, Faculty of Childhood
Education, Kurashiki Sakuyo University, Japan
Tsukasa Daizen, Professor, Research Institute for Higher
Education, Hiroshima University, Japan
Discussion
Lunch

Session 4: Afternoon Session
Chairs:Shinichi Yamamoto, Director & Professor, Research Institutefor Higher Education, Hiroshima University, Japan
William K. Cummings, Professor, Graduate School of
Education and Human Development, The George Washington
University, USA*** Country Reports (Latin America) ***14:00 - 14:30
Presentation 16: Brazil“The Changing Academic Profession: the Brazilian case”
Elizabeth Balbachevsky, Associate Professor, Department of
Political Science, University of São Paulo, Brazil(Co-authored by Simon Schwartzman)
14:30 - 15:00
Presentation 17: Mexico“Mexican Academics at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century:
who are they and how they perceive their work, institutions
and public policies?”
Jesús F. Galaz-Fontes, Professor, Faculty of Human Science,
Autonomous University of Baja California, Mexico
15:00 - 15:30
Presentation 18: Argentina“The Academic Profession in Argentina: characteristics andtrends in the context of a mass higher education system”
Monica Marquina, Research Professor, Institute of Human
Development, National University of General Sarmiento,
Argentina
15:30 - 16:00
Discussion
16:00 - 16:15
Coffee Break426

16:15 - 17:40
17:40 - 17:50

17:50 - 18:00

Chairs:William K. Cummings, Professor, Graduate School of
Education and Human Development, The George Washington
University, USA
Sirat Morshidi, Director & Professor, IPPTN, Universiti Sains
Malaysia, Malaysia
General Discussion
On major topics concerning the changing academic profession
Concluding Remarks
Futao Huang, Professor, Research Institute for Higher
Education, Hiroshima University, Japan
Closing Speeches
Akira Arimoto, Director & Professor, Research Institute forHigher Education, Hijiyama University, Japan
Shinichi Yamamoto, Director & Professor, Research Institutefor Higher Education, Hiroshima University, Japan∗ The participants from Norway and Romania did not attend the conference.

427

Appendix 3:

List of Participants*

OVERSEAS PARTICIPANTS
Invited Experts
Argentina
Monica Marquina

Research Professor, Institute of Human Development,
National University of General Sarmiento

Australia
V. Lynn Meek

Director and Professor, CHEMP, University of New
England

BrazilElizabeth Balbachevsky

Associate Professor, Department of Political Science,
University of Sao Paulo

CanadaAmy S. Metcalfe

Assistant Professor, University of British Columbia

China
Hong Shen
Fengqiao Yan
Gerard A. Postiglione

Vice Dean and Professor, Graduate School of Education,
Huazhong University of Science and Technology
Professor, Graduate School of Education, Peking
University
Professor, Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong

Finland
Timo Aarrevaara

Professor, University of Tampere

Germany
Oliver Bracht
Ulrich Teichler

Research Associate, INCHER-Kassel, University ofKasselProfessor and former Rector, INCHER-Kassel, Universityof Kassel

Italy
Michele Rostan

Director, Center for Study and Research on Higher
Education Systems, University of Paria

Malaysia
Sirat Morshidi*

As of January, 2008

Director and Professor, National Higher Education
Research Institute (IPPTN), Universiti Sains Malaysia

428

MexicoJesús F. Galaz-Fontes

Professor, Autonomous University of Baja California

Portugal
Manuel Graça

Researcher, Centre for Research on Higher Education
Policies (CIPES)

UK
William D. Locke

Principle Policy Analyst and Assistant Director, CHERI,
the Open University

USA
William K. Cummings

Professor, George Washington University

Martin Finkelstein

Professor, Seton Hall University

Participants
Australia
Loe Goedegebuure

Associate Professor, CHEMP, University of New England

Hamishi Coates

Senior Research Fellow,
Educational Research

AustralianCouncilfor

Korea
Jung-Cheol Shin

Research Professor, Seoul National University

Malaysia
Muhamadbin Jantan

Professor, Center for Policy Research, Universiti Sains
Malaysia

MexicoLaura Padilla Gonzalez
Maria de los Dolores
Ramirez Gordillo
Sergio Martinez Romo

Professor, Autonomous University of Aguascalientes

Associate Professor, Autonomous University ofAguascalientes
Professor, University of Metropolitan
Associate Professor, Autonomous University of BajaJose Luis Arcos-Vega
California
Juan Jose Sevilla-Garcia Professor, Autonomous University of Baja California
and another 12 overseas participants

429JAPANESE PARTICIPANTS
Presidents
Toshimasa Asahara
Susumu Takahashi

President, Hiroshima University
President, Hijiyama University

Invited Experts
Akira Arimoto
Takekazu Ehara
Masashi Fujimura
Motohisa Kaneko
Hiroaki Urata
Atsunori Yamanoi
Aya Yoshida

Director and Professor, Hijiyama University
Professor, Ritsumeikan University
Professor, Nigata University
Dean and Professor, University of Tokyo
Professor, Meijo University
Dean and Professor, Kurashiki Sakuyo University
Professor, National Institute for Multimedia Education

Research Institute for Higher Education（RIHE）
Shinichi Yamamoto
Ikuo Kitagaki
Tsukasa Daizen
Futao Huang
Naoyuki Ogata
Jun ObaMasataka Murasawa
Kazunori Shima
Keith J. Morgan
Jussi Valimaa

Director and Professor
Professor
Professor
Professor
Associate Professor
Associate Professor
Associate Professor
Associate Professor
Visiting Professor
Visiting Professor
and another 32 Japanese Participants

430

R.I.H.E. PUBLICATION IN ENGLISH
RIHE International Publication SeriesNo. 1: Kaneko, M. (1987). Enrollment Expansion in Postwar Japan.
No. 2: Guocai, Z. (1989). Higher Education Research in China: An Annotated Bibliography.
No. 3: Abe, Y. (1989). Non-University Sector Higher Education in Japan.
No. 4: Kaneko, M. (1989). Financing Higher Education in Japan: Trends and Issues.
No. 5: Kaneko, M. (1992). Higher Education and Employment in Japan: Trends and Issues.
No. 6: Morgan, J. Keith (1999). Universities and the Community: Use of Time in Universities
in Japan.
No. 7: Arimoto, A. (ed.) (2001). University Reforms and Academic Governance: Reports ofthe 2000 Three-Nation Workshop on Academic Governance.
No. 8: Arimoto, A. (ed.) (2002). University Reforms and Academic Governance
Reconsidered: Report of the Six-Nation Higher Education Research Project.
No. 9: Arimoto, A., Huang, F., and Yokoyama, K. (eds.) (2005). Globalization and Higher
Education.
No.10: Huang, F. (ed.) (2006). Transnational Higher education in Asia and the PacificRegion.

Higher Education Forum
Higher Education Forum Vol. 1 (2003).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 2 (2005).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 3 (2006).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 4 (2007).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 5 (2008).

Higher Education Research in Japan
Higher Education Research in Japan Vol. 1 (2003).
Higher Education Research in Japan Vol. 2 (2005).
Higher Education Research in Japan Vol. 3 (2006).
Higher Education Research in Japan Vol. 4 (2007).
Higher Education Research in Japan Vol. 5 (2008).

431
COE Publication Series
No. 6:

Construction and Quality Assurance of 21st Century Higher Education (Reports ofthe 2003 COE International Symposium) (2003).

No. 7:

Mergers and Cooperation among Higher Education Institutions: Australia, Japan andEurope (Reports of the 2003 COE International Seminar on Mergers andCooperation) (2004).

No. 11: Organization Reforms and University Governance: Autonomy and Accountability(Reports of COE International Seminar) (2004).
No. 12: Enhancing Quality and Building the 21st Century Higher Education System (Reports
of COE International Seminar/Eight-Nation Conference) (2004).
No. 20: Quality, Relevance, and Governance in the Changing Academia: International
Perspectives (Reports of Changing Academic Profession Project Workshop) (2006).
No. 21: A Cross-National Analysis of Undergraduate Curriculum Models: Focusing on
Research-Intensive Universities (2006).
No. 22: Gender Inequity in Academic Profession and Higher Education Access: Japan, theUnited Kingdom, and the United States (2006).
No. 23: Constructing University Visions and the Mission of Academic Profession in AsianCountries: A Comparative Perspective (Reports of COE International Seminar)(2007).
No. 29: Changing Governance in Higher Education: Incorporation, marketisation, and otherreforms − A Comparative study − (2007).

RIHE International Seminar Reports
No. 1: Perspectives for the Future System of Higher Education (Report of the Hiroshima
International Seminar on Higher Education) (1977).
No. 2:

Higher Education for the 1980s: Challenges and Responses (Report of the Second
Hiroshima International Seminar on Higher Education) (1980).

No. 3:

Innovations in Higher Education: Exchange of Experiences and Ideas in International
Perspective (Reports of the Hiroshima/OECD Meeting of Experts on Higher
Education and the Seminar on Innovations in Higher Education) (1981).

No. 4:

Comparative Approach to Higher Education: Curriculum, Teaching and Innovationsin an Age of Financial Difficulties (Reports of the Hiroshima/OECD Meetings ofExperts) (1983).

No. 5:The Changing Functions of Higher Education: Implications for Innovation (Reports
from the 1984 OECD/JAPAN Seminar on Higher Education), (1985).

432
No. 6:

Higher Education Expansion in Asia (Reports from the 1985 International Seminar on

No. 7:

Public and Private in Asian Higher Education Systems: Issues and Prospects (Reports

Asian Higher Education) (1985).
from the Third International Seminar on Higher Education in Asia) (1987).
No. 8:The Role of Government in Asian Higher Education Systems: Issues and Prospects(Report from the Fourth International Seminar on Higher Education in Asia) (1988).

No. 9:

Foreign Students and Internationalizaion of Higher Education (Proceedings of
OECD/JAPAN Seminar on Higher Education and the Flow of Foreign Students)(1989).

No. 10: Academic Reforms in the World: Situation and Perspective in the Massification Stageof Higher Education (Reports of the 1997 Six-Nation Higher Education Project
Seminar) (1997).
No. 11: Higher Education Reform for Quality Higher Education Management in the 21stCentury: Economic, Technological, Social and Political Forces Affecting Higher
Education (Proceedings of the 1999 Six-Nation Presidents’ Summit in Hiroshima)(2000).