22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Evaluation Systems from the Perspective of Academics
Katia Caballero1, Javier Mula-Falcón1, Elena Girela-Trujillo1, Estefanía Martínez-Valdivia2
1University of Granada, Spain; 2University of Jaen, Spain
Presenting Author: Caballero, Katia
This paper is part of a broader line of research, addressed through two research projects, titled "The influence of neoliberalism on academic identities and the level of professional satisfaction" (PID2019-105631GA-I00/AEI/10.13039/501100011033), and "New teaching staff in Andalusian universities: quantified and digitized academic identities" (B-SEJ-534-UGR20), granted by the State Research Agency of the Ministry of Science and Innovation and the Andalusian Agency for Knowledge and Universities of the Andalusian Ministry.
The aim of this paper is to find out the perception and level of satisfaction of academics with evaluation systems. From the end of the last century to the present day, Higher Education has undergone great changes in a continuous process of neoliberalization. In Europe, the transformation of universities has been driven by the creation of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). The Bologna Process identified as key issues the promotion of quality, mobility, diversity and competitiveness, in order to contribute to the growth of employability in the European Union and, as a consequence, of the economy.
The values that supported universities in their origin have also changed compared to those that have been installed in recent decades. At this regard, traditional ideals based on autonomy and academic freedom are being significantly threatened (Clarke, Hyde and Drennan, 2013; Harland, 2009).
The set of policies implemented to achieve common standards in the achievement of competitive Higher Education has given hegemonic power to academic capitalism. In this context, knowledge and education become a commodity, and the type of knowledge that is being generated under these premises begins to be a topic of debate.
Therefore, we find the university ceases to be a place of generation of knowledge and service to society, to focus and assume as a basic principle of subsistence: production. This need is naturalized and transmitted to academics through evaluation systems based on control, accountability and managerialism; thus creating a new professional culture. Many relevant studies analyze the impact of neoliberalism on Higher Education and how we have become neoliberal academic subjects (Archer, 2008; Ball, 2012; Harland, 2009; McCowan, 2017; Tight, 2019; Saura and Bolívar, 2019).
In Spain, the Bologna Process was implemented through LOU in 2001. This Law incorporated extensive modifications in the academic evaluation system. Among them, ANECA is created as an entity to evaluate, certify and accredit academics according to their teaching, research and management activities (LOU, 2001, art. 31.2.c.) as a previous step to obtain a position or promote through different contractual typologies in the university. Later, the LOMLOU in 2007 included some changes in academic evaluation and accreditation. Access to different categories was still linked to prior and external accreditation by ANECA, although the evaluation criteria increased progressively, especially with regard to research production. Some studies have been critical in this regard (Caballero, 2013; Delgado, 2018; Díez-Gutiérrez, 2018). Now with LOSU (2022) the evaluation and accreditation model is consolidated, based fundamentally on the development of research, but especially focused on scientific production in journals that, in the end, are controlled by private companies. Therefore, to access and promote in the Spanish university, the merits of research are a priority compared to those related to teaching.
Likewise, the need to control and measure productivity has led to the use of metrics that have been accepted and naturalized as the appropriate process to measure quality, generating what we can call Digital Academic Capitalism (Saura and Caballero, 2021).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedOur research is based on a sequential mixed design of quantitative and qualitative methodologies as parallel processes to understand the same social reality. While the quantitative research tries to determine the association or correlation among variables and the generalisation of outcomes through a representative sample, the qualitative research is aimed to identify the deep nature of realities and the system of relations through narrative discourses. A complementary use of both methods, as triangulation procedure, will allow a closer approach to the object of study, compensating the deficiencies of one with the riches of the other. The analysis will culminate with the integration of quantitative and qualitative perspectives (Creswell, 2017).
The population of this research is formed by academics from the nine public Spanish universities located at the south of the country (Andalusia). A quant-qual sequential sampling phase was carried out. The size of the population was requested to the General Secretariat of Universities, Research and Technology of the Andalusian Ministry. According to the data that were provided, the population was composed by 17.673 academics.
In order to achieve the objectives designed, the qualitative and quantitative research techniques that guided our process of research were the following:
-Survey. A questionnaire was designed, validated and administered to all the population to gather information on academics’ perception and satisfaction with the evaluation system. From the accepting sample, an information-producing sample of 2183 subjects was obtained. This final sample represents 12.4% of the population, with a sampling error of 1.96 for a 95% confidence interval. Non statistically significant differences were found in the distributions of the sample and the population according to universities (p = 0.72), when applying the Mann-Whitney U.
-Narrative inquiry. To study how academics build their identities, eighteen biographical-narrative interviews were carried out (Bolívar & Domingo, 2019). Through narratives, subjects interpret their experiences making it personally meaningful; it is the way of thinking about experience that gives a profound and subjective view of the phenomena (Clandinin, 2013). Subjects gave voice to create meaning from their own professional and personal experience. An approach to academic perceptions, opinions, feelings and interpretations of a specific social reality allows a deeper comprehension of the object of study and the results obtained through the questionnaire. The participants were chosen taking into consideration the balanced combination of criteria as gender, age, family situation, academic rank and scientific branch.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsBased on the results obtained, we conclude that academics’ identity and the type of work they perform are influenced by the evaluation systems and, in particular, by the criteria established as evidence of quality at work. Academics consider these evaluation criteria do not adequately reflect the quality of their professional work, both teaching and research, which leads them to feel a low level of satisfaction with the evaluation systems.
On the other hand, the evaluation processes linked to accountability promote the constant performativity of academics. They consider this situation causing a negative impact on their health and in the time dedicated to their family and personal life, which also produces them a low level of satisfaction.
At this regard, evaluation systems in Higher Education must guarantee a real quality at the same time that give freedom to academics to develop their own professional paths. Academics cannot substitute by numbers their will and the contribution to its discipline, students and society. We need to find the neoliberalism cracks in order to develop progressive transformative actions (Harland, 2009; Sutton, 2015). Different authors have focused their works in exploring ways of resistance to the neoliberal Higher Education (Giroux, 2011; Ross, Savage & Watson, 2020; Shahjahan, 2019; Sutton, 2015). All of them claim the resistance to the neoliberalism and a shift towards a system that promotes critical democracy and equity in society.
ReferencesArcher, L. (2008). Younger academics’ construction of ‘authenticity’, ‘success’ and professional identity. Studies in Higher Education, 33(4), 385-403. DOI: 10.1080/03075070802211729.
Ball, S. J. (2012). Performativity, Commodification and Commitment: An I-Spy Guide to the Neoliberal University. British Journal of Educational Studies, 60(1), 17-28. DOI: 10.1080/00071005.2011.650940.
Bolívar, A. & Domingo, J. (2019). La investigación (auto)biográfica en educación. Octaedro.
Caballero, K. (2013). Nivel de satisfacción del profesorado universitario hacia los sistemas de evaluación. Revista de Educación, 360, 483-508. DOI: 10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2011-360-124
Clandinin, D. J. (2013). Engaging in Narrative Inquiry. London and New York: Routledge.
Clarke, M., Hyde, A. & Drennan, J. (2013). Professional identity in Higher Education. In B. M. Kehm & U. Teichler (Eds.), The academic profession in Europe: New tasks and new challenges (pp. 7-21). Springer.
Creswell, J. W. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd Ed). SAGE.
Delgado, E. (2018). Sexenios 2018, cambios relevantes: Reformando la evaluación de la transferencia del conocimiento y con novedades del Tribunal Supremo. Aula Magna 2.0. [Blog]. Retrieved from: https://cuedespyd.hypotheses.org/5753
Díez-Gutiérrez, E. J. (2018). Universidad e investigación para el bien común: la función social de la universidad. Aula Abierta, 47(4), 395-402. DOI: 10.17811/rifie.47.4.2018.395-402.
Giroux, H. (2011). Beyond the limits of neoliberal higher education: Global youth resistance and the American/British divide. Retrieved from:
http://publicuniversity.org.uk/2011/11/07/beyond-the-limits-of-neoliberal-higher-education-global-youth-resistance-and-the-americanbritish-divide/
Harland, T. (2009). The university, neoliberal reform and the liberal educational ideal. In M. Tight, J. Huisman, K. H. Mok and C. C. Morphew, The Routledge International Handbook of Education (pp. 511-521). Routledge.
McCowan, T. (2017). Higher education, unbundling and the end of the university as we know it. Oxford Review of Education, 43(6), 733-748. DOI: 10.1080/03054985.2017.1343712.
Saura, G. & Bolívar, A. (2019). Sujeto académico neoliberal: Cuantificado, digitalizado y bibliometrificado. REICE. Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación, 17(4), 9-26. DOI: 10.15366/reice2019.17.4.001.
Saura, G. & Caballero, K. (2021). Capitalismo académico digital. Revista Española de Educación Comparada, 37, 192-210. DOI: 10.5944/reec.37.2021.27797.
Shahjahan, R. A. (2019). On ‘being for others’: time and shame in the neoliberal academy. Journal of Education Policy, 1-27. DOI: 10.1080/02680939.2019.1629027.
Sutton, P. (2015). A paradoxical academic identity: fate, utopia and critical hope. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(1), 37-47. DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2014.957265.
Tight, M. (2019). The neoliberal turn in higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 73(3), 273-284. DOI: 10.1111/hequ.12197.
Ylijoki, O. H. & Ursin, J. (2013). The construction of academic identity in the changes of Finnish higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(8), 1135-1149. DOI: 10.1080/0307.
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Investigating The Ongoing Challenges and Ambiguities of Programme Leadership: Reflections and Recommendations
Patrick Baughan
The University of Law, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Baughan, Patrick
This paper is based on a book chapter which forms part of the forthcoming publication entitled Leadership in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Narratives of Academics’ Personal Journeys (full reference below). Taken as a whole, the book examines how staff navigate to leadership positions in learning and teaching whilst also managing various ‘contested identities’ and ‘marginalised spaces’, such as physical and social marginalised spaces, meso-level leadership positions, and gender. The book comprises personal narratives of emerging and established leaders in learning and teaching. My paper draws on my chapter contribution for the book, and examines these themes in the context of how staff can ‘sense-make’ programme leadership roles at higher education institutions.
In the paper, therefore, I will provide a reflective analysis of my work as a Programme Leader (PL), at three different universities, examining the challenges and ‘role uncertainties’ that often characterise this type of professional position.Normally, a Programme Leader (sometimes referred to by other terms such as ‘programme director’ or ‘course leader’) is a member of staff responsible for the day-to-day management of a given course or programme of study (Cahill et al, 2015). However, in spite of my breadth of experience in higher education, no other leadership position I have occupied has been so complex as the role of PL. I argue that, for a series of reasons, programme leadership may represent a ‘difficult’ example of higher education leadership, but that steps can be taken to clarify some of the ambiguousness (or ‘fuzziness’) by which it is characterized and experienced by so many. Indeed, published literature on programme leadership is consistent in illustrating this can often be a role fraught with ambiguity and complexity (Mitchell, 2015; Moore, 2018; Murphy and Curtis, 2013). Current and former PLs report mixed experiences, sometimes having been unclear about their roles and responsibilities.
Drawing primarily on my leadership experience, but also on conversations with colleagues and on relevant literature, I argue that the PL role is often problematic and that more could be done to improve the experiences of those undertaking it. My paper provides an opportunity to reflect on my experiences, offer some possible causes for the often challenging nature of the role, and make some recommendations.
Key questions that are addressed are:
- How and why is the PL role so often problematic, ambiguous and ‘fuzzy’, and what evidence is there to demonstrate this?
- What actions can individuals and higher education institutions take to negate these difficulties, and clarify and improve the role of the PL, for the benefit of students, staff and PLs themselves, as well as learning and teaching processes?
A note on terminology: Different terms are used to denote the PL role, such as Programme Leader, Programme Director and Course Leader. I use the term ‘Programme Leader’ (PL) for the sake of consistency. The word ‘fuzzy’ (in this context meaning ambiguous or unclear) was first used to describe programme leadership in the work of Mitchell (2015).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe paper is based on a reflective and theoretically informed (Moon, 2005; Senior, 2018) analysis of my work as a PL, at three different universities. Whilst primarily reflective and experiential in focus, it is also informed by the use of other secondary sources including conversations with colleagues, and notes and records used in the role, as well as extensive literature (examples of this literature are cited in the reference section below). In total, I was a PL for nine years three institutions, for which I have used pseudonyms in the analysis, referring to them as University A, University B and University C. University A is a well-established, medium-sized, campus-based institution; University B is a city-centre institution with close links to business; University C is a large, research-focused and prestigious organization. Each of these universities is UK-based but the themes, issues and recommendations which are discussed will be of relevance to an international audience, bearing in mind that PLs are international in composition and the role itself is also international.
As explained above, to inform the work, I drew on a conceptual framework by Senior (2018). Senior explains that there is little bespoke theory focused on programme leadership: ‘The small pool of literature that does exist acts as a critical launch pad, and has the potential to further raise the profile of programme leadership. The findings of these exploratory studies… demonstrate that a firm theoretical basis for programme leadership is yet to be established’ (p. 11). Senior has tproposed a model comprising nine categories as core components for the role, which include: programme delivery and quality; student liaison, support and guidance; staff liaison; committees; external stakeholder engagement; managing internal and external student feedback processes; programme design, approval and modification - and several others. Whilst Senior’s framework has its origins in the British ‘system’, its themes, as well as challenges experienced by staff in PL roles, are also familiar and important in European and international higher education contexts.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsWhilst much of my work in PL settings has been enriching, I have also encountered challenges and ambiguities, suggesting a role of ‘blurred boundaries’, attracting different perceptions and assumptions. By means of sustained reflection and conversations with others in comparable roles, my outcomes offer a series of vignette examples to illustrate the nuances, complexities and ‘fuzziness’ of the role – and the potentially negative implications of these. Further, though I worked as PL at three distinct universities, some of the role complications were similar and indeed broadly cohere with previous accounts of programme leadership (Murphy and Curtis, 2013) I identify examples of this variation, the impact it had, and what ‘lessons may be learned’. Drawing on Senior’s (2018) framework, I will offer recommendations which include: the PL role needs a written role description which fits the institutional and programmatic context; in the rapidly changing HE environment, PL duties need to be reviewed periodically; and, a PL must be able to have clear ownership of the programme that run – and a ‘vision’ for its development. In addition, I will present recommendations for senior colleagues who design PL roles within institutions, such as the need to introduce PL inductions, training and mentoring systems, and promote the use of networks or communities for PLs (Moore, 2018).
In sum, drawing on excerpts from my professional experience and other sources, I opine that although the PL role can be rewarding, it is also characterized by ‘fuzziness’ – ambiguity and uncertainty – in multiple aspects. Work needs to be undertaken to better define and support the role, because PL staff represent a vital interface between university management, students, and teaching and learning. PLs need clear aims and boundaries or else they risk not developing their own leadership skills, but merely enacting the decisions of others.
ReferencesCahill, J., Bowyer, J., Rendell, C., Hammond, A., and Korek, S. (2015), ‘An exploration of how programme leaders in higher education can be prepared and supported to discharge their responsibilities effectively’, Educational Research 57 (3): 272–86.
Ellis, S., and Nimmo, A. (2018), ‘Opening eyes and changing mind-sets: Professional development for programme leaders’, in J. Lawrence and S. Ellis (eds), Supporting Programme Leaders and Programme Leadership (SEDA Special No. 39), 35–9.
Fotheringham, H. (2019), ‘Engaging staff and students with data’, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. https://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/docs/ethe mes/evidence-for-enhancement/engaging-staff-and-students-with-data.pdf ?sfv rsn=e392c781_8
Hosein, A., Kinchin, I. and Rao, N. (2023, forthcoming) Leadership in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Narratives of Academics’ Personal Journeys, London, Bloomsbury.
Johnston, V., and Westwood, J. (2009), ‘Academic leadership: Developing a framework for the professional development of programme leaders’, York: Advance HE. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/academic-leadership-develop ing-framework-professional-development-programme-leaders
Lawrence, J., and Ellis, S. (2018), Supporting Programme Leaders and Programme Leadership (SEDA Special No. 39), London: Staff and Educational Development Association.
Milburn, P. (2010), ‘The role of programme directors as academic leaders’, Active Learning in Higher Education 11 (2): 87–95.
Mitchell, R. (2015), ‘ “If there is a job description I don’t think I’ve read one”: A case study of programme leadership in a UK pre-1992 university’, Journal of Further and Higher Education 39 (5): 713–32.
Moon, J. (2005), ‘Reflection in Learning and Professional Development: Theory and Practice’, London, Routledge.
Moore, S. (2018), ‘Beyond isolation: Exploring the relationality and collegiality of the programme’, in J. Lawrence and S. Ellis (eds), Supporting Programme Leaders and Programme Leadership (SEDA Special No. 39), 29–33, London: Staff and Educational Development Association.
Murphy, M., and Curtis, W. (2013), ‘The micro-politics of microleadership: Exploring the role of programme leader in English universities’, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 35 (1): 34–44.
Robinson-Self, P. (2020), ‘The practice and politics of programme leadership: Between strategy and teaching’, in J. Potter and C. Devecchi (eds), Delivering Educational Change in Higher Education: A Transformative Approach for Leaders and Practitioners, 116–25, Abingdon: Routledge.
Senior, R. (2018), ‘The shape of programme leadership in the contemporary university’, in J. Lawrence and S. Ellis (eds), Supporting Programme Leaders and Programme Leadership (SEDA Special No. 39), 11–14, London: Staff and Educational Development Association.
Vilkinas, T., and Ladyshewsky, R. (2012), ‘Leadership behaviour and effectiveness of academic program directors in Australian universities’, Educational Management Administration and Leadership 40 (1): 109–26.
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Experiences of Disabled Staff Navigating the Higher Education Sector: An Underutilised Resource for Promoting Inclusive Organisational Change within Academia
Stuart Read, Anne Parfitt
Bath Spa University, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Read, Stuart
There is a growing body of European/international academic literature documenting the experiences of disabled staff within higher education (for key texts, see Brown, 2021; Burke & Byrne, 2020; Dolmage, 2017). This evidence presents a consistent picture of exclusion, with disabled staff routinely experiencing structural inequalities (e.g., inaccessible infrastructure, job precarity etc.), as well as negative attitudes from students and staff (Brewer, 2022; Merchant et al., 2020). This literature also reveals that exclusion reported by disabled staff in higher education is not a new phenomenon. However, when considering the pace of change within the higher education sector as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic, such as in terms of students and staff having to modify their teaching and learning practices from in person to online, research is beginning to shine a light on how Coronavirus-related challenges encountered by disabled staff might be adding to, and exacerbating, the exclusion they already encounter (Hannam-Swain & Bailey, 2021; Parfitt et al., 2021).
The bulk of research exploring exclusionary practices within higher education focuses on disabled students, and as such, there are concerns that the valuable insights of disabled staff are being disregarded (Merchant et al., 2020). This paper, presented by disabled academics in the fields of Disability Studies and Education, argues that disregarding the insights of disabled staff is one such example of the systemic and long-term nature of exclusion they face within higher education. Moreover, we argue in this paper that the experiences and insights of disabled staff in pandemic higher education have been underutilised when implementing strategies designed to promote inclusivity within the higher education sector in a ‘post-pandemic’ world. To make our arguments, we share our empirical work exploring disabled staff experiences of the higher education sector during the Coronavirus pandemic. Our research questions for this research were: what are disabled people’s experiences of navigating pandemic higher education? (RQ1), and what are participants’ recommendations for promoting inclusive change in a pandemic and post-pandemic higher education sector? (RQ2).
Our findings reveal a mixed picture in terms of how disabled staff are navigating the pandemic academy. Many staff appreciated the freedom and autonomy to work from home, which in turn, promoted health benefits (e.g., reduced fatigue due to not having to commute to work). However, participants also reported considerable difficulties in navigating the isolation of home working, and the lack of awareness from non-disabled colleagues regarding the need for accessibility. Moreover, participants were concerned at what they perceived to be limited communication between the academy and disabled staff regarding what an inclusive ‘post-pandemic’ higher education sector could be. As such, participants were worried that the inclusive practices that had been enacted during the pandemic era would be erased in favour of reverting back to traditional ways of pre-pandemic working.
We apply theoretical ideas of ableism to our findings to draw attention to disabled people’s experiences of higher education, as well as their strategies for change. Ableism within the context of academia describes the systemic higher education processes and procedures that place value on the ‘able body’ and ‘able mind’, and as such, devalue disabled people’s bodies and those from other marginalised communities (Dolmage, 2017). This ableism permeates the entirety of academic culture (e.g., education and infrastructure) to such an extent that barriers become ‘invisible’: hidden in plain sight. Individuals who can ‘overcome’ these ableist barriers are perceived as valuable because of their gifts and qualities for academia, rather than the sector recognising that these individuals are merely prototypical of what an ‘expected’ person within higher education is supposed to be (i.e., ‘able-bodied’ and ‘able-minded’) (Taylor & Shallish, 2019).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis paper will share empirical data from three different phases of our research: an online survey; semi-structured interviews; and an ‘expert panel’. For the online survey, which was open to disabled staff from around the World, participants were asked to share their experiences of navigating pandemic-era higher education, as well as their recommendations for building a more inclusive ‘post-pandemic’ academy.
The semi-structured interviews with disabled staff expanded upon the online survey findings in greater depth. For instance, participants were asked to describe their thoughts on how the higher education sector could better work with disabled people to become more inclusive in a post-pandemic landscape. Each interview lasted approximately one hour.
The ‘expert panel’ consisted of a group of disabled staff and non-disabled allies who were all interested in disability inclusion within higher education. Expert panel members met collaboratively for focus group-style sessions, each lasting approximately two hours. For these sessions, panel members were invited to create a subjective piece using a variety of creative/malleable materials, such as drawing, plasticine and blocks, which demonstrated their accounts of pandemic, and imagined post-pandemic experiences of disabled people within the academy. Panel members were also encouraged to share the meaning and inspiration behind their created piece, such as what issues they were encountering in pandemic-era higher education, and how these translated into the creation of their piece. The purpose of using creative/malleable materials was to allow individual panel members to create their own piece, but potentially modify or redesign them after hearing the experiences of others in each session, for instance, if another member offered additional insights or different perspectives. Through panel members sharing their creative pieces, and listening to others’ experiences and feedback, the expert panels collectively discussed what an inclusive post-pandemic academy might look like, and what recommendations the higher education sector could take forward.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe Coronavirus pandemic presents a unique opportunity for the higher education sector to learn from the ableist mistakes of its past, which have placed disabled staff at a significant disadvantage when compared to their non-disabled colleagues (Read et al., 2020). Our findings reveal that while disabled staff have reported progress in terms of disability inclusion through the pandemic (e.g., in terms of the flexibility afforded to disabled staff who want to work from home), traditional ableist rhetoric and practices remain. In particular, disabled staff were concerned that the voices and experiences of disabled people had been underutilised or even disregarded in pandemic-recovery decision making. In turn, participants felt that institutions were ignorant to the numerous learned strategies that disabled people have developed for navigating ableist barriers in higher education, both pre-pandemic and during the pandemic era. This fear was evidenced in the felt belief that the stance taken towards pandemic recovery by the higher education sector appeared to reflect a desire to go back to the ‘normality’ of pre-pandemic working: working in which disabled staff were routinely excluded. This return to pre-pandemic ways of working risks undermining or erasing the positive gains that have been achieved during this period. To build a truly inclusive higher education sector, disabled staff recommended that institutions fully listen to, and engage with, their experiences, and apply their learned knowledge of navigating exclusion to all pandemic recovery decisions. Moreover, participants recommended that higher education institutions recognise that the pandemic period has promoted many positive and inclusive ways of working for all university staff and students, such as the ability to work flexibly from home, and that these changes should be fully embedded in the ‘post-pandemic’ academic world.
ReferencesBrewer, G. (2022). Disability in higher education: Investigating identity, stigma and disclosure amongst academics. Open University Press.
Brown, N. (Ed.) (2021). Lived experiences of ableism in academia: Strategies for inclusion in higher education. Policy Press.
Burke, C., & Byrne, B. (Eds.) (2020). Social research and disability: Developing inclusive research spaces for disabled researchers. Routledge.
Dolmage, J. T. (2017). Academic ableism: Disability and higher education. University of Michigan Press.
Hannam-Swain, S., & Bailey, C. (2021). Considering Covid-19: Autoethnographic reflections on working practices in a time of crisis by two disabled UK academics. Social Sciences and Humanities Open 4 (100145).
Merchant, W., Read, S., D’Evelyn, S., Miles, C., & Williams, V. (2020). The insider view: Tackling disabling practices in higher education institutions. Higher Education, 80(2), 273-287.
Parfitt, A., Read, S., & Bush, T. (2021). Can compassion provide a lifeline for navigating Coronavirus (COVID-19) in higher education? Pastoral Care in Education, 39(3), 178-191.
Read, S., Parfitt, A., & Bush, T. (2020). The COVID-safe university is an opportunity to end the default ableism of academia. LSE Impact Blog. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/12/10/the-covid-safe-university-is-an-opportunity-to-end-the-default-ableism-of-academia/
Taylor, A., & Shallish, L. (2019). The logic of bio-meritocracy in the promotion of higher education equity. Disability & Society, 34(7-8), 1200-1223.
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Examining Labour Market Success in the Career Path of Recent Graduates
Marianna Szemerszki, Júlia Seli, Tamás Iharosi
Hungarian Educational Authority, Hungary
Presenting Author: Szemerszki, Marianna
The link between higher education and labour market success is difficult to examine not only because the boundaries between higher education and the world of work are blurred, with many students already working while studying or starting new higher education studies at an older age with work experience, but also because employability and a good labour market position are influenced by a number of other factors beyond the existence of a higher education degree. The concept of labour market success itself is not straightforward, as there are many dimensions, some of which can only be captured by subjective indicators. (Teichler, 2002; Veroszta, 2011).
In recent decades, there has been a growing demand in some European countries for closer links between higher education and the employment system. However, in most countries, the focus is on the development of so-called "key competences", i.e. competences that are not closely linked to specialized professional training. (Teichler, 2018). Analysing graduate skills can lead to a better understanding regarding labour market demand and supply, as well as competencies that need to be taught in higher education institutions. While exploring these skills and competencies, it is important to bear in mind other important factors involved in the process - age, social background, type of university, field of study, etc. (Mason et al., 2009). However, it is also worth mentioning that many relevant employability skills can be best acquired in the workplace rather than in universities given the specific nature of the tasks performed in the workplace. (James et al., 2013).
Previous international research (REFLEX, HEGESCO) have shown that graduates, assessing their own competencies and those they believe the labour market expects of them, often report shortages in some areas and surpluses in others, but both can occur simultaneously for some competencies, if graduates are not well distributed between different jobs. (Allen‒van der Velden 2009). Hungarian results from the Graduate Career Tracking System 2020 survey data show that recent graduates considered practical skills that are most important for their work. Meanwhile the less important skills they needed tend to be more general. A stronger deficit between needs and preparedness can be observed for the more pragmatic competencies (practical expertise, application of skills, problem-solving skills), followed by time- and work-management competencies. (Iharosi, 2022).
In our analysis, we use survey data to examine the professional progress of graduates, and the extent to which some dimensions of labour market success are related to the competencies and skills of recent graduates, in addition to the different characteristics of higher education studies, the events of the period since graduation and individual background characteristics. An important factor regarding labour market success is social background. International and Hungarian studies suggest that graduates from socially advantaged backgrounds are more likely to experience more smooth and advantaged career trajectories than graduates from lower classes, plus they are more likely to attain top managerial and professional occupations. (Duta, 2020; Veroszta, 2011). Previous analyses of administrative data on graduates have shown that around a tenth of graduates who finished their studies in 2011/12 move into a managerial position within 7 years of graduation, but there is significant variation in this respect by level of study, type of enrolment (full-time, part-time) and field of study. (Harkányi, 2022).
The aim of our research is to explore the labour market success of recent graduates and the factors that play a part in the process. In addition to objective indicators of success, we investigate the characteristics that influence subjective labour market success and the matching of the two.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedOur analysis is based mainly on the EUROGRADUATE survey, which was conducted in the autumn of 2022. We analyse the Hungarian data from this international survey, taking into account previous national surveys and analyses of administrative data as well. In Hungary, since 2010, every year graduates from 1 or 5 years earlier are asked about their further studies and labour market characteristics, and every two years there is also the possibility to obtain information from linking the administrative data of graduates. The Integration of Administrative Databases (IAD) is part of the Graduate Career Tracking System (GCTS), in which factual data stored in other administration data systems (e.g., National Tax Authority, National Health Insurance Fund) are anonymously linked to individual-level data stored in the Higher Education Information System (HEIS). This gives us the opportunity to examine the labour market situation (e.g., labour market status, income) of graduates in the longer term.
The EUROGRADUATE survey includes several sets of questions that provide a picture not only of the facts but also of the subjective dimensions of labour market success. The sample consists of 7024 respondents and provides information on the labour market situation of students who graduated 1 or 5 years earlier, including information about the level of competencies required in their current job and their own skills level as well. This allows us not only to identify competencies which are required in their current jobs, but also to calculate discrepancies between their own and required competence levels.
First, we construct two separate labour market success indicators based on the measuring of the objective and subjective success variables. Then, using regression analysis, we examine how these can be described by different background characteristics and what differences emerge in the two combined success indicators.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsIn terms of objective indicators of labour market success, the results of the Graduate Carrier Tracking Survey 2020 (N=7614) so far show that the more time has passed since graduation, the more likely it is to have a more successful labour market career, as measured by objective indicators. In addition, higher level of tertiary education (master's degree as opposed to bachelor's degree) is also more likely to lead to a more successful labour market position when measured by indicators such as income and higher managerial position. The data also show that, among the skills and competencies, theoretical and practical expertise, cooperation and work organisation skills are the most important contributors to objectively successful labour market careers.
The EUROGRADUATE 2022 survey data provide an opportunity to consider subjective indicators of success as well, such as satisfaction with certain aspects of the job and the respondent's perception of the adequacy of the labour market position, in addition to objective indicators of success. In relation to the subjective labour market success (e.g., job satisfaction, job matching), it is expected that the inclusion of this dimension will broaden the range of those who can be considered successful in work. We expect that some of those who are not considered successful by objective indicators may also have a successful career path in some other respect due to their personal experience of success. By including partly different individuals in this group, it can be assumed that we will find new or different background factors influencing subjective perception of success compared to background factors influencing objective success.
ReferencesAllen, J.– van der Velden, R. (eds.) (2009). Report on the Large-Scale Graduate Survey: Competencies and Early Labour Market Careers of Higher Education Graduates. University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Slovenia
Duta, A.–Wielgoszewska, B.–Iannelli, C. (2020). Different degrees of career success: social origin and graduates’ education and labour market trajectories. Advances in Life Course Research, 100376.
Harkányi, Á. M. (2022). Vezetővé válás a végzettek körében pályakövetési adatok alapján. [Becoming a leader among graduates based on tracking data.] Felsőoktatási Elemzési Jelentések. V/1: 25-28.
Iharosi, T. (2022). A frissdiplomások megszerzett kompetenciái a munkaerőpaci igények tükrében. [Competences acquired by recent graduates in the light of labour market needs.] Felsőoktatási Elemzési Jelentések. V/1. 22-25.
James, S.–Warhurst, C.–Tholen, G.–Commander, J. (2013). What we know and what we need to know about graduate skills. Work, Employment and Society, 27(6), 952–963.
Mason, G.–Williams, G.–Cranmer, S. (2009). Employability skills initiatives in higher education: what effects do they have on graduate labour market outcomes?, Education Economics, 17:1, 1-30.
Teichler, U. (2002). Graduate Employment and Work in Europe: Diverse Situations and Common Perceptions. Tertiary Education and Management 8:3, 199-216
Teichler, U. (2018). Higher Education and Graduate Employment: Changing Conditions and Challenges. INCHER Working Paper Nr. 10. Kassel
Veroszta, Zs. (2011). A munkaerő-piaci sikeresség dimenziói frissdiplomások körében. [Dimensions of labour market success among recent graduates.] In: Garai O. et al. (ed.) Frissdiplomások 2010. Educatio Társadalmi Szolgáltató Nonprofit Kft., Budapest, 11-36.
|
