Barry A. Sheehan
Anthony R. Welch
with
Fiona J. Lacy
96/1
University of Melbourne
University of Sydney
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION, TRAINING
AND YOUTH AFFAIRS
© Commonwealth of Australia 1996
Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this report may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
A report funded under the Evaluations and Investigations Program of the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful for the contributions of
Catherine Chin, who typed and laid out the manuscript through several drafts, and Deborah
Doyle of Living Proof, who edited the report.
CHAPTER 1: Overview of Project
CHAPTER 2: Instrument Development
CHAPTER 3: The Survey Sample
CHAPTER 4: Some General Findings
CHAPTER 5: Views of the Academic Profession about Students
CHAPTER 6: Views of the Academic Profession about Professional Activity
CHAPTER 7: Views of the Academic Profession about Governance and Management
CHAPTER 8: Views of the Academic Profession about Higher Education and Society
CHAPTER 9: Job Satisfaction and Perceptions of Working Conditions
CHAPTER 10: Internationalisation
In 1991 the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching initiated an international survey of university academic staff, the immediate purpose of which was to obtain, analyse and compare information about the attitudes, values and work patterns of the academic profession in Australia, Brazil, Chile, England, Germany, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, The Netherlands, Russia, Sweden and the United States. This report focuses on selected data for Australia and includes some international perspectives. Data from the wider survey should provide comparative information on questions such as: Who are the academics? How do they see themselves and their work? What motivates academic work? How do they see the academy as contributing to society? What are the significant differences in these dimensions between academic staff of each gender, at different levels in different kinds of institutions and in different countries?
A "master" questionnaire was prepared by an international research team, and was modified in cultural terms by each national team. For Australia, differences in academic culture and nomenclature as well as the broader culture had to be accommodated at the same time as the comparability of data was maintained. The Australian instrument incorporates additional questions to obtain a perspective on changing perceptions over time. Items on place of birth; parents' place of birth; level of education of parents; socioeconomic background; career breaks and perceived disadvantage were also added, together with items on union affiliation and satisfaction.
A two-stage sampling process was adopted in which the primary sample units were
universities and the secondary sampling units were individual staff within the selected
universities. One institution was selected within each of a "research" and
"other" institutional grouping (the nomenclature is for operational purposes
only) for each 5 per cent of the grand total of all eligible academics . Eight Australian
universities, identified as "research" institutions were included in the sample.
Twelve "other" institutions were drawn at random from the remaining list of
institutions (in their amalgamated configurations at that time). With a target sample of
about 3 500, approximately 1 400 were drawn from the "research" group of
universities and 2 100 from the "other" group to provide a sample density of 1:8
in research institutions and 1:4 in the "other" category (30 April 1991 staffing
levels), stratified by full-time and fractional full-time and within each of these by
level (rank) and faculty.
There were 1 420 useable responses (40.14 per cent of the target group). The match between major dimensions of the sample and the known survey population was close. The results must be interpreted with caution.
Analysis of the survey data on gender was carried out with reference to readily
available population data. Gender disparities were evident by rank, particularly at senior
levels and in the "other" group of universities. Science-related disciplines
demonstrate strong gender bias in all universities. Within the broad Health area, Health
Sciences departments had twice as high a proportion of women academics as males at Level B
and almost four times the proportion of males at the two top levels, relative to the
proportion of their female colleagues. In Dentistry and Medicine fewer than 20 per cent of
the survey respondents were women and they seemed to be further severely under-represented
at the two top ranks (Levels D and E). Gender differentials were also evident in the
Social Sciences/Humanities area, where 7 to 10 per cent of women respondents were at
either level D or E, whereas about 70 per cent of women respondents were from Levels A and
B. In Education, about 25 per cent of women academics were at Level C or higher, compared
with 55 per cent of male academics.
Sixty per cent of respondents' mothers were not in the paid workforce when the respondent was about age 12. Mothers of academics at ģresearchī universities were more likely to be described as "professional" and less likely to described as "white-collar clerical." Academics from "research" universities tended to have a slightly higher proportion of professional fathers than those from "other" universities. The reverse was true of "blue collar" occupations, where academics from "research" universities were less likely to describe their fathers as "blue collar" than those from "other" universities. Professors reported a higher proportion of professional (45 per cent) and managerial (22.5 per cent) fathers than respondents of any other rank and also reported fewer "white collar" and "blue collar" fathers than any other academic rank.
Most respondents (57 per cent) indicated that students in their department were good or
excellent whereas 37 per cent indicated fair. Most indicated that students today were the
same (42 per cent) or better than (32 per cent) those five years ago. Respondents from
Visual/Performing Arts were the most positive about their students, followed by
respondents from Built Environment, whereas around one-third of respondents from the
Science, Mathematics/Computing and Engineering/ Processing departments stated that their
students were worse than those five years ago. In ģresearchī universities, 63.6 per cent
of respondents rated the quality of students in their department as excellent or good,
whereas in the "other" university category, 53 per cent of staff so ranked their
students. Of staff from "research" universities, 30.5 per cent rated their
students as fair, and 6 per cent rated them as poor. This can be compared with respondents
from the "other" category, of whom 40.6 per cent rated their students as fair
and 6.5 per cent rated them as poor. Forty-one per cent of Mathematics and Computing and
43 per cent of Engineering respondents rated their students as excellent or good compared
with 62 per cent of respondents in Humanities.
Of respondents teaching entirely at the postgraduate level, 77 per cent placed the
students in their department in the good to excellent category, whereas of those teaching
entirely at the undergraduate level, 54 per cent responded in the same way. Female
respondents were marginally more likely to rate the quality of students in their
department as excellent or good (60.7 per cent) than male respondents (55 per cent).
Fifty-nine per cent of respondents at Level A, 54 per cent at Levels B and C and 59.5 per
cent at Level D rated the quality of students as excellent or good. Seventy per cent of
Level E (Professors) ranked their students as excellent or good.
Sixty-five per cent of Australia's respondents believed that their undergraduates were inadequately prepared in oral and written communication skills and 55 per cent believed undergraduates were inadequately prepared in mathematics and quantitative reasoning skills. On the other hand, 54 per cent believed admission standards should be lowered in order to enable disadvantaged students to enrol at their institution, and 75 per cent indicated that access to universities should be available to all who meet the minimum entrance requirements.
About 22 per cent of respondents from "other" institutions assessed their preparation for undertaking research as poor, compared with 11 per cent of respondents from institutions designated , where 62 per cent of respondents assessed their research training as excellent or good., compared with 44 per cent of respondents from "other" establishments. Across all institutions, 56 per cent of Level A and Level B staff have a primary interest in, or lean towards, teaching, compared with 48 per cent at Level C, 30 per cent at Level D and 25.5 per cent at Level E.
About 62 per cent of respondents from institutions designated "research"
universities assessed their research training as excellent or good, compared with 44 per
cent of respondents from "other" establishments. Twenty-two per cent of
respondents from "other" institutions assessed their preparation for undertaking
research as poor, compared with 11 per cent from ģresearchī universities.
Across all institutions, 56 per cent of Level A and Level B staff have a primary
interest in, or lean towards, teaching, compared with 48 per cent at Level C, 30 per cent
at Level D and 25.5 per cent at Level E. Almost 75 per cent of respondents in ģresearchī
universities and 81.6 per cent in "other" universities held that student opinion
should be used in order to evaluate teaching, although 64.8 per cent and 67.7 per cent,
respectively, also believed better ways are needed for evaluating teaching.
The mean weekly hours reported as being worked by full time respondents were 44.4 for
females and 47.6 for males (with standard deviations of 17.5 and 16.5, respectively).
Respondents in Science and Social and Behavioural Sciences claimed to work the longest
average hours during term time at 49.9 and 48.5, respectively; Visual and Performing Arts
claimed to work the shortest average hours at 41.9. In all cases the standard deviation
exceeded 13.2. Typically, the time reported as being worked fell by two to three hours per
week outside semester or term time.
There was no discernible difference between the hours female and male respondents said
they devoted to individualised instruction. The average time devoted to individualised
instruction increased through a reasonably even progression correlated with rank, from 3.6
hours for Level A through to 5.9 hours for Level E, with wide standard deviations. The
pattern of large-group teaching over the entire sample was such that Level A and Level E
respondents reported an average of less than three hours per week, whereas Levels B, C and
D reported an average of about four hours. Mean average hours spent in small-group
instruction decreased with rank from Level A (9 hours, standard deviation 7.2) through
Level B (7 hours, standard deviation 4.8), Level C (6.3 hours, standard deviation 6.1),
Level D (5.3, standard deviation 3.7) to Level E (4.1 hours, standard deviation 4.9).
The reported research productivity of Australian respondents was comparable with those
of many of the other nations surveyed. Differences were discernible according to
discipline, rank, gender and type of institution. There was a positive correlation of
productivity with rank. A greater proportion of males than females had presented papers,
published articles, written research reports and newspaper articles and authored and
edited academic books over the previous three years and, in most cases, more of them. All
ranks with the exception of Level D showed a higher rate of output of scholarly articles
for male staff than for females.
Many more female respondents at the junior levels reported their teaching
responsibilities strongly inhibited their academic research; for their male peers this
association was more important at middle and senior ranks. Equally, many more junior women
(68 per cent of Level A and B female respondents) than men reported the availability of
research funding to be a strong positive influence upon their research; for 32 per cent of
men of equivalent ranks this support was reported as being more crucial at the middle and
higher levels.
Few respondents (18 per cent) indicated they received funding for research from
business firms; this was disproportionate across disciplines: 44 per cent of academics in
Engineering/Processing and about 34 per cent of respondents in Agriculture/Renewable
Resources and Built Environment indicated their funds came from business.
Respondents indicated they were working in a climate of strong research expectation: 83 per cent agreed that regular research is expected in their academic position. More respondents from "research" than "other" universities indicated that research activity was expected (91 per cent compared with 79 per cent). About 31 per cent of respondents reported feeling under pressure to do more research than they would have liked, and 46 per cent did not. More respondents from "research" compared with "other" universities disagreed with this statement. Academics most reporting pressure to do more research than they would have wished came from Education and Built Environment, and greater numbers of teaching-oriented respondents (43 per cent) than respondents who were more research-oriented (17 per cent) reported being under this pressure.
Many staff professed ignorance about where important decisions were made in their
universities. On items such as the selection of key administrators, institutional
strategic planning and admission standards, about one in four of all staff surveyed
claimed ignorance. Fifty-eight per cent of respondents attributed to the Vice-Chancellor
the key decision-making role in institutional strategic planning, whereas fifteen per cent
of staff saw this task being carried out by a central committee. Sixty-seven per cent of
respondents saw the approval of new academic programs as lying with either a central
committee or a Faculty/School committee. The setting of admission standards was seen as
being more dispersed, with central and Faculty/School committees playing the major role,
according to 51 per cent of staff, but with the Vice-Chancellor (7.3 per cent), Deans
(12.4 per cent) and Heads of Department (6.2 per cent) also playing a role.
The extent of respondents' self-assessed knowledge varied according to rank, which was
an important discriminator on a range of specific items. When asked where decisions were
made with respect to choosing new academic staff, for example, 15.6 per cent of Level A
staff indicated they did not know, compared with 0.6 per cent of Level D respondents, and
zero per cent among Level E respondents. More than 30 per cent of Level A staff indicated
they did not know where decisions on promotion and tenure were made (compared with 2.0 per
cent of their Level D and 1.0 per cent of their Level E colleagues). Best informed on most
measures were respondents who were or who had been Heads of Department or Deans.
When asked where key decisions were made, about 33 per cent of female respondents
indicated they did not know where, or by whom, for example, senior academic administrators
were chosen, which was a much higher rate than the equivalent response for males (19 per
cent). Equally significant gender disparities were displayed on other similar items, with
female respondents answering "don't know" at a higher rate than their male
peers.
More than half of all respondents felt themselves to be either very influential or
somewhat influential in shaping key academic policies at some level, but clear differences
were found which accorded broadly with rank and gender and with proximity to
decision-making structures. Rank, too is closely associated with perceptions of influence.
Three in four Level E staff perceived themselves to be very influential at departmental
level, compared with 2.3 per cent of Level A staff who feel similarly.
Respondents were asked to look at their own institution and indicate their responses to
statements relating to management and decision making processes: only 7.4 per cent agreed
unequivocally that senior academic administrators are providing competent leadership. A
further 21 per cent were more positive than neutral, 26 per cent were neutral, 20 per cent
were somewhat negative, and 26 per cent firmly disagreed. A high proportion of respondents
(63 per cent) agreed that "the administration is often autocratic", with rates
of agreement slightly higher at "other" institutions. Seventy-two per cent of
respondents who had worked at a CAE in 1987 agreed with the proposition, as against 64 per
cent from former universities. Despite these reservations, respondents expressed
substantial confidence that academic freedom was protected by the administration of their
institution. About 23 per cent disagreed with this proposition.
About 54 per cent of respondents disagreed with the proposition that government should
set overall goals and policies in higher education, while 29 per cent agreed. Gender was a
significant discriminator, with women respondents much less likely to agree (20.3 per
cent) and more likely to disagree (65.7 per cent) than their male peers (33.8 per cent and
48.2 per cent, respectively). More than half of all respondents agreed with the
proposition that government control was more extensive over their academic work than five
years ago.
Respondents were asked their views on a range of ways in which universities and their social context are related. The reported data include responses to propositions about such issues as: Educating students for leadership, analysed by type of institution and discipline; preparing students for work, analysed by discipline, type of institution, department, and rank; lifelong learning for adults, analysed by type of institution; preserving cultural heritage and protecting free intellectual enquiry, analysed by type of institution, discipline, gender and rank; promoting scholarship and research, analysed by type of institution, rank and discipline; strengthening the nationķs capacity to compete internationally, analysed by type of institution; helping to resolve social problems, analysed by type of institution, discipline, and gender; and attitudes about higher education, analysed by gender, discipline and rank.
Male respondents tended to be more satisfied than females with most aspects of their
job. No significant difference in job satisfaction was found between those working at
"research" or "other" universities. However, the mean level of job
satisfaction was correlated with age, rank and income, and the lowest rank on the job
satisfaction scale (Level A, 64 per cent of whom are female) indicated less satisfaction
with their jobs in general than their highest ranking Level E counterparts. When asked
about their job situation as a whole, the great majority of respondents (75 per cent) said
that they were either neutral or satisfied, while 25 per cent said they were dissatisfied.
When respondents were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with various
aspects of their work, the areas in which they were most satisfied were with the classes
they teach (77 per cent satisfaction), their relationships with colleagues (69 per cent),
the opportunity to pursue their own ideas (65 per cent), and job security (58 per cent).
Academics were least satisfied with their prospects for promotion (25 per cent
satisfaction) and the way the institution is managed (18 per cent). Respondents from
"research" universities expressed generally lower satisfaction than academics
from "other" universities with regard to job security (54 per cent satisfaction
compared with 61 per cent), and with their prospects for promotion (23 per cent compared
with 27 per cent). Male academics expressed significantly greater satisfaction than female
academics with regard to job security (64 per cent satisfaction compared with 45 per
cent), opportunity to pursue their own ideas (69 per cent compared with 59 per cent), and
their job situation as a whole (52 per cent compared with 43 per cent). More female than
male academics stated they were satisfied with the classes they teach (83 per cent
compared with 74 per cent).
In the "research" universities 37.1 per cent of all respondents indicated
that special studies programs available to them were good or excellent, compared with 27
per cent in "other" universities. In the latter group, about 65 per cent overall
saw the provision as fair or poor and 8.5 per cent believed such programs to be
unavailable to them. Twenty-seven per cent of female respondents at Level D rated their
opportunities for sabbatical as good, compared with 40 per cent of males at this level.
Female Level E staff were less likely to give positive ratings than their male colleagues,
at 40 and 49 per cent respectively.
Thirty-one per cent of respondents indicated relationships between academic staff and
administration were good or excellent. However, a further 38 per cent indicated that these
were only fair. More academics from "research" universities indicated good or
excellent relationships with the administration than those from "other"
universities (36 per cent compared to 28 per cent). Significant percentages of respondents
gave poor assessments of academic staff morale at their institution (39 per cent), sense
of community (36 per cent), and the clarity of institutional mission (31 per cent). No
differences were apparent between academics from "research" and
"other" universities on these measures.
The majority of respondents agreed that this was an especially creative and productive
time in their field. Respondents with a preference for research were more positive, with
74 per cent agreeing, compared with 60 per cent of those with a preference for teaching.
Forty-six per cent of respondents disagreed that this was a poor time for a young person
to begin an academic career in the academicķs field of study and about one third agreed
with the statement. Sixty-six percent of respondents did not agree with the statement,
ģIf I had to do it over again, I would not become an academic,ī and a further 18 per
cent remained neutral.
About 34 per cent rated their salary as good or excellent and a further 44 per cent
rated their salary as fair. There was no difference between respondents from
"research" and "other" universities, but respondents from some fields
of study were more positive in their ratings of their salaries than others: 58 per cent of
academics from Visual and Performing Arts indicated their salary was good or excellent
compared with 26 per cent from Science. Only 8 per cent of respondents indicated that the
general level of benefits available to them was better than five years ago, and 66 per
cent indicated that benefits were about the same or worse now than five years ago.
Mean job satisfaction across eight selected countries was 3.4, indicating high levels
of satisfaction, but differences were apparent between nations. Respondents in the US
tended to be most satisfied (3.61) compared with those in Germany (3.13), while the mean
job satisfaction of Australian respondents was 3.35. As an international group, academics
across the eight nations reported were generally satisfied with their relationships with
colleagues (70.4 per cent), job security (62.2 per cent), the opportunity to pursue their
own ideas (64.4 per cent), and their job situation as a whole (51.1 per cent). However, a
substantial proportion of respondents (44.1 per cent) were dissatisfied with their
prospects for promotion compared with 27.6 per cent who indicated satisfaction.
Respondents from the US, Mexico, (41 per cent, respectively) and Israel (39 per cent) were
most satisfied with promotion prospects. German respondents, on the other hand, expressed
strong dissatisfaction (63 per cent). Dissatisfaction was also expressed by academics in
the UK (48 per cent) and Australia (45 per cent).
Respondents from Germany (65 per cent), Australia (55 per cent), UK (54 per cent), Hong Kong (51 per cent), and the US (45 per cent) all showed substantial dissatisfaction with the way their institution was managed. Respondents from Mexico, Israel, and Sweden were more satisfied than dissatisfied, although satisfaction was still below 50 per cent. Males, in comparison to females, showed higher overall satisfaction on the job satisfaction scale (3.44 > 3.30). This difference was significant for all nations with the exception of Israel and Mexico.
About 30 per cent of respondents held their highest degree from another country. The US
and UK provided the bulk of internationally earned highest degrees, contributing 44 per
cent and 26 per cent, respectively, of all internationally earned highest degrees. A
further 10 per cent came from Canada.
A number of findings highlighted differences between categories of respondents.
ģPeripateticī respondents were more likely to be full time employees than ģindigenousī
respondents and ģperipateticī respondents were marginally more likely to be in
continuous employment than their ģindigenousī peers, the respective ratios of continuing
to contract employment being 2.8:1 for the former group and 2.4:1 for the latter.
"Peripatetic" respondents were more likely to be male; more likely to have a primary interest in research, and be more productive researchers. They were likely to be older, more highly qualified and earning higher salaries. The greater proportion of "peripatetic" respondents, were to be found at "research" universities. About 22 per cent of female staff surveyed at Australian universities were in the "peripatetic" category, compared with 37 per cent of males. There was a declining ratio of "indigenous" to "peripatetic" respondents from junior to senior staff categories. At Level A the aggregate (male and female) ratio was 4.1:1, compared with an aggregate ratio of 1.82:1 for Level E.
This page was last updated on 10 July 1996
Copyright © Commonwealth of Australia