promoting academics
DESCRIPTION
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. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Promoting academics
Warren SmartPrincipal Research AnalystTertiary Sector Performance Analysis & ReportingMinistry of Education
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
Lecturer
Senior lecturer
Associate professor
Professor
Source: University of Otago
Sustained competence
Sustained outstanding competence
Sustained outstanding leadership
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 promotedSubject 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 Low/none
•Education•Physical Sciences
•Creative & Performing Arts•Humanities & Law•Social Sciences•Biological Sciences•Maths & Info Sciences•Engineering & Technology•Business & Economics
•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 Medium Low/none
•Engineering & Technology
•Humanities & Law•Social Sciences•Biological Sciences•Maths & Info Sciences•Education•Physical Sciences•Health•Medicine & Public Health
•Creative & Performing Arts•Business & Economics
Higher academic rank – negative association with likelihood of being promoted
Strong Medium Low/none
•Education •Humanities & Law•Social Sciences•Biological Sciences• Engineering & Technology• Maths & Info Sciences•Physical Sciences•Health•Medicine & Public Health•Creative & Performing Arts•Business & Economics
Age – association with likelihood of being promotedSignificant None
•Creative & Performing Arts•Business & Economics•Education
•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.