Transcript Moscow PP June 2013

The diversifying academic
profession: The case of NL
on institutional profiles,
teaching and research and
professional careers
Egbert de Weert (CHEPS)
b
25/07/2016
International workshop
“Academic Profession in Russia: International and
Comparative Perspectives”
Higher School of Economics Moscow, June 17-18-2013
Committee on the Future
Sustainability of Dutch Higher
1
Russia – the Netherlands in the golden age (1698)
Czar Peter the Great (statue and picture in Zaandam)
2
Diversity in the academic profession
Looking at the fault lines between teaching and research
at three levels:
 Level of institutional types and profiles
 Programme level
 Personal level: the divide between men and women
3
Diversity of institutional types
 Binary divide: Research universities versus professional
(teaching) institutions: eg. Germany, Finland, Netherlands
 More diversified: research institutes outside the universities:
France (national research centers); Russia (institutes of
Academy of Science)
 Highly layered systems, including private HE institutions:
USA, Japan, Russia
Governments to decide:
 which institutions ought to do what
 define budget allocations
4
Distribution of working tasks of faculty
 Traditional division teaching (40%), research (40%) and
administration (20%)
 Now more flexible patterns, no formal standards
 Also teaching-only and research-only positions
 In Russia teaching load determined according to formal
standards corresponding to rank and position. On average
8 hours per week research against 29 hours teaching (G.
Androushchak & M.Yudkevich 2012).
5
Binary systems distinguishing Research Universities
and Universities of Applied Sciences (UAS)
 Vertical degree level: sub-degree programs, bachelor,
master, doctoral programs
 Academic versus vocational dimensions
 Distinction between research and teaching focused
institutions
6
Profile of research at Universities of Applied Sciences
 Practice-based and practitioner research oriented towards
utilization and transformation of knowledge and research results
into innovation, mainly on the regional level.
 It is customer driven and close to the market, responding to
requests from enterprises (mainly SME’s) and other social
organizations with product and customer-oriented research for the
short and medium term.
 It should be relevant for the quality of professional education, for
curriculum innovation and the professionalization of the teaching
faculty.
7
Views of UAS faculty in NL
 Research contributes to innovation of professional practice
 Research reinforces the dialogue with business and the
professional field
 Research benefits teaching and curricular development
 Research at UAS is different in nature from university
research
Higher faculty ranks (strongly) agree more (70-90%) than
lower faculty ranks (65-77%)
8
Relative research time spent by higher and lower ranks and
institutional type, (7 countries)
• Higher university ranks
are homogenous
• Lower University ranks
high in Norway, Finland,
Germany
• UAS sector more varied:
Norway and Portugal
close to university
• UAS lower ranks spent
more time on reseach in
Norway; higher ranks
more in NL
9
Pressures to pull teaching and research more apart in
research universities
 Financial support for research separated from funding of
teaching
 Separate organisation of teaching and research:
concentration of research in research institutes, centers,
graduate schools
 Bologna process of two phases creates divide between
teaching at BA and MA level
Previous research: synergy between teaching and research
increases with level of education
Separation of teaching and research tasks possible?
desirable?
10
Percent of respondents agreeing with the statement:
‘teaching and research are hardly compatible with each other’
by teaching time in BA and MA programs (universities)
%
40
35
%
A
g
r
e
e
i
n
g
30
25
20
BA
MA
15
10
5
0
0-25
26-50
Teaching time
˃ 50
 Incompatibility increases in
the extent to which the
teaching proportion in BA
programs increases
 For Masters it is the
reverse: disagreement with
the statement relates with a
higher teaching time in
masters programs.
Per cent of respondents agreeing with the statement:
‘Your research activities reinforce your teaching’
by teaching time in BA and MA programs (universities)
%
90
88
86
%
A
g
r
e
e
i
n
g
84
82
BA
80
MA
78
76
74
72
0-25
26-50
Teaching time
˃ 50
 The link between teaching
and research is stronger
when the proportion of
teaching at masters’ level is
larger.
 Added value of productive
researchers in BA
programs is the lowest.
 Gap between frontier
knowledge and teachable
codified knowledge
12
Diversity on the personal level: men and women in
Dutch higher education
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
Women 1998
50.0%
Men 1998
Women 2011
40.0%
Men 2011
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Doctoral
candidates
Other
academics
Assis. Prof
Associate
Prof
Full Prof
13
Gender bias
 Functional distinctions between teaching and research. Do
women carry a disproportionate share of teaching loads?
 Are women more committed to teaching/ do they have a
preference for teaching over research?
 Those who spend more time on teaching have lower levels of job
satisfaction?
However:
 CAP data reveal that:
 Male and female hardly differ in their preferences for research or
teaching
 Male and female hardly differ in the proportion of total working
hours devoted to teaching and research
14
Relationship between teaching time and satisfaction
by gender and rank
4.6
4.2
4.1
3.9
3.8
3.7
Male
3.6
Female
3.5
degree of satisfaction
degree of satisfaction
4.4
4
4.2
4
high rank
3.8
low rank
3.6
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.2
1
2
3
4
teaching time
5
1
2
3
4
teaching time
5
15
Conclusions
 In binary systems research and teaching institutions less
demarcated. More diverse patterns emerge
 More flexibility of teaching and research tasks at BA and MA level
(new career trajectories on the basis of teaching qualifications
 Teaching and research dimension as such does not account for
gender differences.
Current national policies on HE:
 Emphasis on international rankings/ flagship universities
 Priority research areas (Top sectors) /Skolkovo Innovation Center
This should not be detrimental to the UAS given their important
contribution in the national research agenda (translating research
into practice)
16