Parallel session - Tuesday 20 September 2016

1. Policies and preferences of academic actors:
Explaining changes in academic employmentExplaining changes in academic employment
models
Luis Sanz-Menéndez & Laura Cruz-CastroLuis Sanz-Menéndez & Laura Cruz-Castro
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)
Institute of Public Goods and Policies (IPP), Madrid
Department of Science and Innovation
Luis.Sanz@csic.es Laura.Cruz@csic.es
OECD, Blue SKY III Conference, Informing science and Innovation
Policies. Towards the next generation of data and indicators, Ghent,
19-21 September 2016.
1Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP) – Departamento de Dinámica de la Ciencia y la Innovación
www.ipp.csic.eswww.ipp.csic.es

2. Outline of the Messagesg
• Understanding Science and Innovation Systems & Policies through the
analysis of opinions, attitudes and preferences of actors
• Units of analysis and sources of information
• Individuals are treated as informants of other levels of analysis, but less
about their ownabout their own.
• Data collection in S&I analysis using surveys to individuals about
individuals:
P bli d t di f iPublic understanding of science
Policy evaluation and impact analysis
Academic Careers expectations, ……………
• Facts Attitudes Opinions and Preferences• Facts, Attitudes, Opinions and Preferences
• Some ways of use of surveys to individuals on individual issues:
Classical statistical approach (preferences of academics about employment models)
Q i E i t l d i i l iQuasi Experimental design using survey analysis
“Population-based survey experiments” (the future)
• Need for a global infrastructure for survey implementation to STI actors
2Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP) – Departamento de Dinámica de la Ciencia y la Innovación

3. Relevance of studying actors’ opinions, attitudes and
preferences (on the employment models at universities)preferences (on the employment models at universities)
• Organizations are adapting to survive, but Individuals are concerned
about: social acceptance, status and identityy
• They are important to understand individual behavior (motivations leading
to action)
• The actors’ opinions attitudes and preferences could matter for change orThe actors opinions, attitudes and preferences could matter for change or
stability in public policy
• Their understanding is relevant for the comparative analysis of policies and
the diversity of national institutional arrangementsthe diversity of national institutional arrangements
• Opinions, attitudes and beliefs shape organizational practices in institutions
• Opinions, attitudes, beliefs and preferences’ formation have been widely
t di d i th fi ld b t b l i d ti t distudied in other fields, but very barely in career and promotion studies.
• It is an area relatively unexplored in STI studies
Bringing the “public opinion” approaches into STI analysis
Need for a better understanding of agency
3Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP) – Departamento de Dinámica de la Ciencia y la Innovación

4. 1. Objectivesj
• The work aims to study the Spanish academics’ opinions,
attitudes and preferences about some competing institutional
logics governing academia and the university organizational
practices.
Professional logic vs state logic• Professional logic vs state logic
• In the paper, the university employment models (university
selection and promotion systems),selection and promotion systems),
• Starting with understanding preferences about the
“selection and promotion system”
• Preferences are rankings derived from comparative
evaluation of objects’ attributes (prioritization among set of
objects)objects)
• Preferences and attitudes are highly related
4Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP) – Departamento de Dinámica de la Ciencia y la Innovación

5. 2. Explaining attitudes and preferences
A. Self-interest based explanations
– Widely used in many fields of sociology interest structures set the– Widely used in many fields of sociology, interest structures set the
goals that people strive towards and help to form their attitudes and
preferences (material, individual and imminent) (Sears & Funk 1991)
When a person’s defined interest (or expectation) benefits from a type
of promotion system (i.e the one in place) she should be more likely
to hold favorable attitudes towards it.
B. The role of beliefs and values in preference formation (ideology
based explanations)based explanations)
– Interest are not the sole determinant but the perception of the
situation in an area shapes the preferences too (Lau & Heldman
2009)
Sociotropic factors emerge from beliefs about the situation of the
university and the current access and promotion systems
5Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP) – Departamento de Dinámica de la Ciencia y la Innovación
university and the current access and promotion systems

6. 2. Explaining attitudes and preferences
C. Personal experience and learning (exposure-based explanations)
– Beliefs are stable but could change as a result of personal
experiences and learning (Holland et al 1986)
Personal experiences with different hiring and promotion systems (and
duration of these experiences) or Managerial experiences induration of these experiences) or Managerial experiences in
universities could shape the preferences.
D. Socialization and institutional factors
– Formal education is a powerful mean thought which professional
norms are produced legitimated and diffused (Di Maggio & Powellnorms are produced, legitimated and diffused (Di Maggio & Powell
1983)
Education background (place of PhD) and trajectory (international
i bilit ) t th f th li k ith th l l i itexperiences, mobility); strengths of the links with the local university
culture (inbreeding, family background etc.) It is not the direct
experience but the exposure to ideas, experiences or beliefs (from
6Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP) – Departamento de Dinámica de la Ciencia y la Innovación
other employment models)

7. 3. Relevance. Why Spain is a “critical” case?
Dual model in the employment system: Civil servants (tenured) and
temporary contracted
• Before 1983: National Exams called by the Ministry, national central evaluation
committees, public hearing (competitive tournaments), selected candidate gets a
position automatically.
• Between 1983-2001: Local exams, decentralized selection at the university
level, mixed evaluation committees (local + national members) public hearing
(competitive tournaments), selected candidate gets a position automatically.
2001. Separation between evaluation and granting the position
Between 2001 2007: National Habilitation exams National central evaluation• Between 2001-2007: National Habilitation exams. National central evaluation
committees, public hearing (competitive tournaments), selected candidate gets
habilitation, but he/she has to compete locally for a position at a further step.
F 2008 t tl A dit ti CV b d l ti b ti l• From 2008 to currently: Accreditation. CV-based evaluation by national
committees, approved candidate gets accreditation (non-competitive), but
he/she has to compete locally for a position at a further step.
7Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP) – Departamento de Dinámica de la Ciencia y la Innovación

8. Academic employment models: Ideal Types and
taxonomies
Selection and evaluation modes
Centralized De decentralizedCentralized De-decentralized
N ti l E L l E
Direct
selection
( t ti
National Exams
for access to the
professoriate categories
b di i li
Local Exams
for each university and
position by discipline
(Spain: Between 1983 2001)
Employment/
Appointment
(automatic
effects)
by discipline
(Spain: Before 1983)
(Spain: Between 1983-2001)
effects (One
or two steps
in the
Accreditation
Required
National Exams for
Habilitation
Accreditation (CV
based)
(Spain: since 2008 National
f i il t iti d
process) (Non-
automatic
effects)
(Spain: 2002-2007 for civil
servant positions)
for civil servant positions and
since 2001 national/regional
for contracted positions)
8Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP) – Departamento de Dinámica de la Ciencia y la Innovación

9. 4. Methods and Data
• Population Targeted: Doctorate holders employed in Public
Universities (Academics in public universities).
• Data Gathering: Specific designed questionnaire (30 questions• Data Gathering: Specific designed questionnaire (30 questions
approx.)
• Data collection: Web-based survey
• Implementation: between March and June 2015
• Provisional data set for the analysis: 5,000 questionnaires and more
than 4 500 valid responses (May 2015) 37% femalesthan 4,500 valid responses (May 2015), 37% females.
• Average rate of response of reference population: 20%
• Universe: Academics in a sample of 20 Spanish Universities (of the 47p p (
classroom universities) representing 43% of academics.
• Unit of sampling: Universities.
We asked people to select (express their preferences) among 3• We asked people to select (express their preferences) among 3
viable systems of access and promotion to university
employments (that have existed recently in Spain) and are in
9Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP) – Departamento de Dinámica de la Ciencia y la Innovación
place in different countries.

10. 4. Preferences about the “selection and promotion
systems”systems
System you most agree with
Accreditation Procedures
Accreditation
Decentralized
Selection
National (Habilitation) Exams
Decentralized Selection
Procedures
48%
Selection
30%
Decentralized Selection
National
(Habilitation)
Exams
22%22%
10Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP) – Departamento de Dinámica de la Ciencia y la Innovación

11. Preferences about the “selection and promotion systems”
Exposure effects: The younger the cohort the stronger the support to Accreditation
System you most agree with by age
60,1%
60%
70%
System you most agree with by age
45,0%
51,1%
48,0%
42,2%
50%
33,8%
28,0%
32,7%
29,2%
27,9%30%
40% Accreditation
Procedures
National (Habilitation)
Exams
Decentralized Selection
Lineal (Accreditation
24,0%
22,3%
19,6%
12,0%
24,1%
20%
Lineal (Accreditation
Procedures)
Lineal (National
(Habilitation) Exams)
0%
10%
70 & + 60 - 69 50 - 59 40 - 49 < 39
11Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP) – Departamento de Dinámica de la Ciencia y la Innovación
70 & 60 69 50 59 40 49 39

12. Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Final Model
Self-interest
5.Factors explaining preference for current accreditation
Accreditation to upper rank (yes) .522 *** .544 *** .537 *** .565 *** .593 ***
Eligible for promotion (yes) .619 *** .625 *** .589 *** .557 *** .779 *
Beliefs and values
Accreditation is the best system for merit-based selection (yes) .167 *** .183 *** .183 *** .173 ***
Index on the functioning of promotion in the university system 1.211 *** 1.192 *** 1.199 *** 1.194 ***
Personal experience and learning
Promoted to current job under accreditation system (yes) .695 *** .710 *** .817 *
Experience in university top management (yes) 1 694 ** 1 679 ** 1 520 *Experience in university top management (yes) 1.694 ** 1.679 ** 1.520 *
Experience in accreditation processes (yes) .619 *** .624 *** .603 ***
Degree of professional satisfaction 1.108 ** 1.126 ** 1.139 **
Institutional and Socialisation factors
Strongly inbred (yes) 881 * 906Strongly inbred (yes) .881 * .906
International experience (yes) .729 *** .816 **
Index of disciplinary versus university identity 1.088 * 1.074
Control Variables
Sex (female) .907( )
Age .972 ***
Field of science (experimental sciences) 1.153 *
Top 10% researcher (yes) 1.304 *
P f i l i t ti t h ( )Professional orientation to research (yes) 1.208 *
Constant 1.659 2.332 1.899 1.477 3.728
Pseudo R‐square (R2 Nagelkerke) .045 .287 .308 .313 .327
Observations (n) 4460 4460 4460 4460 4460
12Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP) – Departamento de Dinámica de la Ciencia y la Innovación
Observations (n) 4460 4460 4460 4460 4460
Note: Coefficients shown are changes in the probabilities Odd Ratios (exp(B))
* < .05 ** <.01 *** <.001

13. 6. Main Findings
• INTERESTS MATTER The odds of preferring the current system for those holding an• INTERESTS MATTER. The odds of preferring the current system for those holding an
accreditation to a higher-level rank are 41% higher compared with those not holding it, a
finding supported by the literature on self-interest attitudes and opinions.
• BELIEFS, OPPINIONS AND ASSESSMENT OF UNIVERSITY PROBLEMS condition the
preferences about selection and promotion systems even more. There is an strong
association between having a negative vision on the quality of the selection of current
system and supporting the return to a centralized model In fact these variables are thesystem and supporting the return to a centralized model. In fact, these variables are the
most powerful contributors to the overall explained variance.
• PERSONAL EXPERIENCES. Academics tend to support the system that was in place
when they were awarded with their positions (a 18% odds increase).
• MANAGEMENT EXPOSURE (LEARNING). Interestingly, experience in top-management
positions is related to a higher support towards a “centralized system” (a 51% increase).
• CAREER SOCIALIZATION. Contribution of these variables is minor and has a weak
association with academics’ preferences regarding promotion. The effect of international
experience goes in favor of Accreditation (against expectations).
Age, “quality”, research orientation, and Natural & Experimental fields moderate support for
accreditation
13Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP) – Departamento de Dinámica de la Ciencia y la Innovación

14. 7. Some policy conclusions
• Policies reforms in HE have questioned the dominance of local academics
communities versus evaluation agencies.
• Visible tension between “policy regulation” and “collegial practices”
• With the last reform university interests achieved the separation of the
evaluation of academics from the selection and recruitment keeping the
control over the latter.
• According to our results academics will be supportive of the current
accreditation system, unless there are concerns about quality criteria
of evaluation agencies, and the suitability of departments as the
i f d i l timain arena for academic selection.
• Hiring and promotion systems favor the creation of their own
constituencies and affect attitudes
Our analysis implies that the situation is unstable and the community• Our analysis implies that the situation is unstable and the community
divided. (48% of the respondents prefer the current system). At best, there
is an unstable equilibrium which makes radical policy change unlikely to
occuroccur.
• Conflicting logics regarding merit based selection (professional
autonomy vs government quality control). Equilibrium solution under
current governance university system?
14Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP) – Departamento de Dinámica de la Ciencia y la Innovación
current governance university system?

15. Thanks!
Questions?
Contact:Contact:
Luis.Sanz@csic.es or Laura.Cruz@csic.es
15Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP) – Departamento de Dinámica de la Ciencia y la Innovación