Parallel sessions 2 - 20 September 2016

1. Mobility and inbreeding in the heart of Europe.
What factors predict academic career in Dutch
-speaking Belgian universities?
Marco Seeber 1
Noëmi Debacker 2
Karen Vandevelde 2
1
Department of Sociology, Ghent University marco.seeber@ugent.be
2
ECOOM, Research department, Ghent University
OECD BLUE SKY III
Ghent 20th
September 2015

2. Researchers’ MOBILITY is beneficial but it is not always an asset for
academic careers
Apparently:
highly attractive systems  open: mobility in an asset (US)
weakly attractive systems  closed: mobility is not an asset (MEX, ES)
Yet, highly attractive system can be “closed” (Sweden, Belgium)
GOAL: better understand what conditions make mobility an
asset for a researcher career ?
 context: Flemish university system
Mobility and inbreeding in academia

3.  QUEUE models: employers rank applicants and applicants
rank job offers
 Longer queues of applicants for High Reputed universities in
High Attractive countries  more foreigners the
academic body is more mobile (Lepori, Seeber, Bonaccorsi
2015)
 Assumption: the best applicant are hired
 YET, why is there a large difference between the % of
foreign staff at junior and senior level?
Hiring process in academia

4. Foreign senior and junior staff

5. Hypotheses
 Does Hiring work differently for Junior and Senior positions?
 In general, there is a homophile bias in hiring
 Yet Senior positions also have power
 Professorial body as an academic Oligarchy
 Oligarchies have the tendency to preserve their internal
homogeneity in terms of value congruence and social
similarity. Therefore we expect:
1. female, mobile and foreign researchers less frequently
appointed than males, inbred and nationals
2. The difference is larger for higher ranks, namely for
professors than postdocs positions

6. Context, data and methods
Flemish university system. Five universities.
HRRF dataset 1990-2013; we consider researchers born after 1964
(N=52,908)
Descriptive and Inferential statistics (multilevel regression)
Dependent Variable
Career outcome: appointed or not in Flemish HE system (0/1)
Independent variables
Career track: non-mobile, internal mobile, external mobile
Gender
Nationality/Language group
Controls
Scientific discipline, Age starting postdoc, pregnancy leave, prestige
of postdoc institution

7. Results – descriptive statistics
PhD graduates Postdoc probability ratio gap
Female 6679 2501 37% 0,93 -7%
Male 9751 3910 40%
Non-Belgian 3639 626 17% 0,38 -62%
Belgian 12735 5783 45%
Postdoc Professors probability ratio gap
Female 3149 301 10% 0,71 -29%
Male 5485 740 13%
Non-Belgian 3.147 70 2% 0,13 -87%
Belgian 5.487 971 18%
External mobile 3192 80 3% 0,14 -86%
Internal mobile 429 56 13% 0,72 -28%
Non mobile 5013 905 18%

8. Probability of postdoc to become professor
Multilevel regression: Beta coefficients
sign.
proportion of
probability
delta %
probability
external mobile vs non mobile *** 0,26 -74%
external mobile vs internal mobile *** 0,41 -59%
gender Female vs Male *** 0,60 -40%
Netherland vs Belgium * 0,55 -45%
Europe vs Belgium *** 0,40 -60%
North America & Oceania vs Belgium 0,37 -63%
South America, Asia, Africa vs Belgium *** 0,21 -79%
Humanities vs Medicine *** 2,20 120%
Social sciences vs Medicine *** 2,52 152%
Engineering vs Medicine * 0,79 -21%
Natural sciences vs Medicine *** 0,66 -34%
0,98 -2%
Pregnancy leave Yes vs No 0,77 -23%
University reputation High vs Low 1,05 5%
career path
nationality
discipline
Age Start Postdoc (grand mean) : + 1 year

9. Results – descriptive
statistics

10. Results – longitudinal variations

11. Conclusions
Hypotheses are not rejected:
male, national, inbred researchers have been appointed more
frequently compared to female, foreign, mobile peers.
effects are stronger for hiring at professorial level
Limitations: performance, willingness to return to home country
Implications:
When is mobility an asset? Importance of norms and rules.
Competition is not enough
Freedom to move but not equal opportunities?
Future research:
Do collegial decision making matter on this regard?
External members in the committee can impact?

12. Thanks for your attention!
Questions, suggestions, comments… welcome !
OECD BLUE SKY III
Ghent 20th
September 2015