Transcript 963KB - ATEM

Promoting academics
Warren Smart
Principal Research Analyst
Tertiary Sector Performance Analysis & Reporting
Ministry of Education
Overview
•
•
•
•
The academic promotion process
Data and method
Results
Conclusions
Research questions
• What are the factors associated with the
likelihood of academic promotion?
• Do these factors vary among broad subject
panels?
The academic promotion process
• Staff submit an application for promotion with
evidence of their performance in:
– Teaching
– Research
– Service
• Referees are also used to provide evidence
of performance
The academic promotion process
Professor
Sustained outstanding
leadership
Associate professor
Sustained outstanding
competence
Senior lecturer
Sustained competence
Lecturer
Source: University of Otago
Data – who is being analysed?
• University staff who:
– were lecturers, senior lecturers or associate
professors in 2003
– participated in both the 2003 and 2006 Quality
Evaluations
– submitted evidence portfolios in the 2003 Quality
Evaluation
• Around 3,100 staff
Data
• Demographic
– Age, gender
• Employment related
–
–
–
–
–
–
Institution
Academic rank (2003 & 2006)
Quality category (2003)
Number of submitted research outputs (2003)
New and emerging (2006)
PBRF subject panel (2006)
• However, data is not available on performance in the
teaching or service areas
Method
• Logistic regression
– Dependent variable measures whether staff were
promoted or not.
– OLS regression is not appropriate.
– Logistic regression examines the association
between the explanatory variables and the
likelihood of being promoted.
– Holds all other factors constant.
Probability of being promoted
Subject panel
% promoted
Business and Economics
31.7%
Social Sciences
31.4%
Humanities & Law
28.0%
Health
27.3%
Education
27.0%
Engineering & Technology
26.4%
Biological Sciences
24.7%
Physical Sciences
24.0%
Mathematical & Information Sciences
22.7%
Medicine & Public Health
20.6%
Creative & Performing Arts
19.9%
All
26.4%
Higher research quality – positive association
with likelihood of being promoted
Strong
Medium
•Education
•Physical Sciences
•Creative & Performing Arts
•Humanities & Law
•Social Sciences
•Biological Sciences
•Maths & Info Sciences
•Engineering & Technology
•Business & Economics
Low/none
•Health*
•Medicine &
Public Health
* Note that all staff who received an A in this panel in 2003 were promoted.
Higher research output – positive association
with likelihood of being promoted
Strong
•Engineering &
Technology
Medium
•Humanities & Law
•Social Sciences
•Biological Sciences
•Maths & Info Sciences
•Education
•Physical Sciences
•Health
•Medicine & Public Health
Low/none
•Creative &
Performing Arts
•Business &
Economics
Higher academic rank – negative association
with likelihood of being promoted
Strong
•Education
Medium
•Humanities & Law
•Social Sciences
•Biological Sciences
• Engineering & Technology
• Maths & Info Sciences
•Physical Sciences
•Health
•Medicine & Public Health
•Creative & Performing Arts
•Business & Economics
Low/none
Age – association with likelihood of being promoted
Probability
of
promotion
Age
Age – association with likelihood of being promoted
Significant
•Creative & Performing Arts
•Business & Economics
•Education
None
•Humanities & Law
•Social Sciences
•Biological Sciences
• Engineering & Technology
• Maths & Info Sciences
•Physical Sciences
•Health
•Medicine & Public Health
Other results
• Gender
– No difference in likelihood of men and women
being promoted
• Experience
– New and emerging staff less likely to be promoted
in Education and Humanities & Law
Conclusions
• Research performance and initial academic rank are
key factors associated with the likelihood of
promotion in all subject panels.
• There is some variation in these associations among
subject disciplines, mainly in terms of the size of the
association.
• May reflect the weighting placed on research in
certain subject panels by promotions committees.
For more analysis and statistics relating to the
tertiary education sector go to:
www.educationcounts.govt.nz