RESEARCH. Recruitment and Retention of Academic Staff in Higher Education. Hilary Metcalf, Heather Rolfe, Philip Stevens and Martin Weale

Transcription

1 RESEARCH Recruitment and Retention of Academic Staff in Higher Education Hilary Metcalf, Heather Rolfe, Philip Stevens and Martin Weale National Institute of Economic and Social Research Research Report RR658

2 Research Report No 658 Recruitment and Retention of Academic Staff in Higher Education Hilary Metcalf, Heather Rolfe, Philip Stevens and Martin Weale National Institute of Economic and Social Research The views expressed in this report are the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department for Education and Skills. National Institute of Economic and Social Research 2005 ISBN

3 Acknowledgements This study was only possible due to the generous support of a large number of people. We would like to thank them all. We will not name individuals, as most cannot be named for reasons of confidentiality. In particular, our thanks go to the universities which participated in the study, those individuals who agreed and facilitated access and described their human resourcing. A special thanks goes to those individuals who helped provide us with the quantitative survey samples. In many cases, this was an onerous task and we greatly appreciate the tenacity and dedication shown. We would also like to thank the research students and academics who participated in the qualitative research for their time and trust to respond to highly personal questions. Finally, our thanks go to all the research students and academics who completed the detailed quantitative questionnaire.

4 CONTENTS DETAILED CONTENTS...I TABLES... VII FIGURES... XII REPORT SUMMARY...XIII 1 INTRODUCTION PREVIOUS EVIDENCE ON RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION ISSUES IN ACADEMIA7 3 THE STRUCTURE OF ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERSECTORAL AND INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS OF PAY ENTRANTS TO ACADEMIC JOBS ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT AND CAREERS LEAVERS THE ROLE OF HUMAN RESOURCE POLICIES AND PRACTICES CONCLUSIONS BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX A : THE QUALITATIVE RESEARCH APPENDIX B : THE STAFF AND STUDENT SURVEYS APPENDIX C : HESA STAFF AND STUDENT DATA APPENDIX D : NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS APPENDIX E : INTRA-UK EARNINGS AND UK/US ACADEMIC EARNINGS APPENDIX F : THE LIKELIHOOD OF STUDENTS ENTERING ACADEMIA APPENDIX G : JOB SATISFACTION AND INTENTIONS TO LEAVE ACADEMIA APPENDIX H : RECENT AND PROPOSED POLICY DEVELOPMENTS...289

5 Detailed Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...I DETAILED CONTENTS...I TABLES... VII FIGURES... XII REPORT SUMMARY... XIII S.1 The study...xiii S.2 Recruitment and retention problems...xiv S.3 Pay...xiv S.4 Recruitment to the sector...xiv S.4.1 Pattern of recruitment...xiv S.4.2 Reasons for entering academia...xv S.4.3 Satisfaction of academic staff...xvi S.5 Retention...xvii S.5.1 Factors affecting leaving the sector...xvii S.6 Discrimination and equal opportunities...xviii S.7 Raising the supply to the sector...xviii S.8 Improving retention...xix S.9 Management and human resource practices...xix S.9.1 Recruitment practice and recruitment difficulties...xx S.9.2 Promotion and retention practices...xx 1 INTRODUCTION Overview of the study HESA staff and student data The comparative analysis of pay The qualitative and quantitative survey research Nomenclature Report layout PREVIOUS EVIDENCE ON RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION ISSUES IN ACADEMIA7 2.1 Introduction Turnover Evidence on recruitment and retention problems Current experience of the case study universities: recruitment Current experience of the case study universities: turnover Factors affecting recruitment and retention Introduction Employers views on factors affecting recruitment and retention Pay...17 i

6 Reputation and subject area Redundancies Promotion The whole package Job satisfaction of academics Factors affecting recruitment and retention: pay Comparative pay levels within the UK The importance of pay Pay systems Academic salaries in an international context Pay discrimination Factors affecting recruitment and retention: pensions Factors affecting recruitment and retention: job content Teaching Research Administration and management Factors affecting recruitment and retention: promotion and progression Changes in career path Internal promotion Promotion criteria The RAE Gender Ethnicity Factors affecting recruitment and retention: workload and hours of work Factors affecting recruitment and retention: security of employment Staff on temporary contracts The pattern of use of temporary contracts Findings from the study of contract research staff in Scotland Factors affecting recruitment and retention: family-friendly practices Factors affecting recruitment and retention: other Summary and conclusions THE STRUCTURE OF ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION Introduction Institutional structure Job structure Grade structure Pay structure Additional earnings Contractual status Primary employment function Mode of employment The characteristics of academic staff in Higher Education Gender Age Ethnicity Nationality Staff Qualifications...59 ii

7 3.5 Summary Job structure Characteristics of employees INTERSECTORAL AND INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS OF PAY Introduction Flows in and out of the UK Higher Education sector A comparison of academic salaries across nine countries Data Results Full-time Staff The Distribution of Earnings An analysis of intra-uk earnings and UK/US academic Earnings Background UK US Factors affecting international pay differences Summary and conclusions ENTRANTS TO ACADEMIC JOBS Introduction A note on the data Layout of the chapter Source of entrants to the sector Career routes into academia: existing staff Existing staff: decision process for entering academia Students as a source of entrants The supply of PhD students Students career intentions What do research students want from a job? Does academia offer what research students want? Students perceptions of academia Prior knowledge of academic employment Research students perceptions of academic jobs Do students think academia offers what they want? Are students expectations met? The factors influencing the likelihood of students entering academia Summary and conclusions Source of academic recruits Career decisions Students What do research students want from a job? Perceptions of academia Policy implications and further research needs ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT AND CAREERS Introduction Career paths iii

8 6.2.1 Expected progression Academics satisfaction Introduction Are Female Academics Happier? What Makes Staff Happy? The determinants of satisfaction Is there a single overall measure of satisfaction? Summary Progression within academia Overall satisfaction Satisfaction with individual aspects of the job Factors affecting satisfaction Personal characteristics Experience Grade Contractual status Differences between universities Hours Research ranking LEAVERS Introduction Career plans Career plans: changing universities Career plans: leaving the UK Higher Education sector Remaining in academia to retirement Expectations of leaving the sector in the following year Factors affecting the likelihood of leaving UK Higher Education Introduction Results Summary and conclusions Career expectations Factors affecting leaving the sector Implications for policy THE ROLE OF HUMAN RESOURCE POLICIES AND PRACTICES Introduction A note on research staff Employment strategy Recruitment practice Recruitment strategy The recruitment process The pay offer Other terms and conditions Response to recruitment difficulties Promotion practice Promotion systems Procedures and criteria Response to retention difficulties/changes: promotion systems iv

9 8.5 Pay system Pay level Retention incentives Appraisal, training and development Recruits Appraisal Training and development Work demands and work allocation Equal opportunities Gender Ethnicity Age Other Equality initiatives Summary and conclusions Ethos and human resource structure Employment strategy Promotion practice Pay system Work demands and work allocation Equal opportunities CONCLUSIONS The labour pool Pay Job content Workload Other aspects of the job Job security Career prospects Careers advice Discrimination Other issues Management and human resource practices Further research BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX A : THE QUALITATIVE RESEARCH A.1 The scope of the qualitative research A.2 The sample APPENDIX B : THE STAFF AND STUDENT SURVEYS B.1 Aim B.2 The university sample B.2.1 University sample population B.2.2 University sample structuring B.3 The staff sample v

10 B.4 The student sample B.5 Fieldwork B.6 Response rates B.7 Weighting B.8 Bias B.8.1 Staff B.8.2 Research students APPENDIX C : HESA STAFF AND STUDENT DATA C.1 HESA staff data set C.2 HESA Student Data APPENDIX D : NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS D.1 Data D.1.1 UK D.1.2 US D.1.3 Australia D.1.4 New Zealand D.1.5 Canada D.1.6 Denmark D.1.7 France D.1.8 Sweden D.1.9 Japan D.1.10 Additional tables APPENDIX E : INTRA-UK EARNINGS AND UK/US ACADEMIC EARNINGS E.1 Background E.2 Empirical Model E.3 Results E.3.1 UK E.3.2 US APPENDIX F : THE LIKELIHOOD OF STUDENTS ENTERING ACADEMIA F.1 Model F.2 Results APPENDIX G : JOB SATISFACTION AND INTENTIONS TO LEAVE ACADEMIA G.1 The General Model G.2 The Job Satisfaction of Academics G The satisfaction of temporary staff G Satisfaction in a dynamic framework G.2.2 Analysis G.2.3 Is there a single overall measure of satisfaction? G.3 Factors affecting the likelihood of leaving Higher Education G.3.1 Introduction G.3.2 Results APPENDIX H : RECENT AND PROPOSED POLICY DEVELOPMENTS vi

11 Tables Table 2.1 Turnover in HE staff, 2001/2 (%)...8 Table 2.2 Turnover by broad subject (%)...9 Table 2.3 Turnover by higher education institution type (%)...10 Table 2.4 Turnover by type of contract (%)...11 Table 2.5 Turnover as a percentage of total turnover by type of contract...11 Table 2.6 Comparison of job satisfaction of academics with whole economy...20 Table 2.7 Contract researchers: value of job attributes...36 Table 3.1 Employment by type of institution...44 Table 3.2 Salary scales from 1 August Table 3.3 Staff grades (%)...46 Table 3.4 Staff grades lecturing and senior researchers (%)...47 Table 3.5 Academic Staff: Gross additional earnings in the previous 12 months (%) 48 Table 3.6 Academic staff: Gross additional earnings in the last year, by grade (%)...48 Table 3.7 Academic staff: Gross additional earnings by subject...49 Table 3.8 Employment activity by contractual terms (%)...50 Table 3.9 Breakdown of Staff by Primary Employment Function (%)...51 Table 3.10 Mode of Employment (%)...52 Table 3.11 Mode of Employment by Terms of Employment (%)...52 Table 3.12 Mode of Employment by Employment Function (%)...52 Table 3.13 Academic staff by gender...53 Table 3.14 Mode of Employment by Gender (%)...54 Table 3.15 Mode of Employment by Age and Gender (%)...54 Table 3.16 Breakdown of Staff by Subject and Gender...55 Table 3.17 Staff grades (%)...56 Table 3.18 Breakdown of Staff by Primary Employment Function (%)...56 Table 3.19 Breakdown of Staff by Terms of Employment (%)...56 Table 3.20 The Age of HE Staff (%)...57 Table 3.21 The Age Structure of HE Staff (%)...58 Table 3.22 Breakdown of Staff by Nationality (%)...59 Table 3.23 The Age of HE Staff by nationality (%)...59 vii

12 Table 3.24 Highest qualification of staff (%)...59 Table 3.25 Qualifications by Terms and Mode of Employment (%)...62 Table 4.1 Flows into and out of UK Higher Education sector, by nationality...66 Table 4.2 Destination of academics within Higher Education sector, by nationality..67 Table 4.3 New academics from within Higher Education sector, by nationality...67 Table 4.4 Academic salaries, in...71 Table 4.5 Proportion of part-time academic staff...72 Table 4.6 Real earnings of full-time workers only...72 Table 4.7 Comparative actual academic earnings by age...80 Table 4.8 Earnings of academics relative to average earnings...82 Table 5.1 Origin of entrants to the HEI sector, 2001/ Table 5.2 Total staff movements by age group (%)...90 Table 5.3 The Contracts of Entrants to HE by Age...91 Table 5.4 Academic staff: First academic job: type of job...92 Table 5.5 Academic staff: Contractual basis of first academic job...92 Table 5.6 Academic staff: Employment outside academia...93 Table 5.7 Academic staff: Nature of employment outside academia...93 Table 5.8 Academic staff: Entrants making career change by subject...94 Table 5.9 Academic staff: Whether made a career change to go into academia...95 Table 5.10 Academic staff: Entrants making career change by type of university and by gender...95 Table 5.11 Academic staff: Whether was seriously considering and comparing careers before got first academic job...97 Table 5.12 Academic staff: Career intentions prior to first academic job...98 Table 5.13 Academic staff: Career intentions prior to first academic job by type of university and by gender...98 Table 5.14 Academic staff: Career intentions prior to first academic job by subject..99 Table 5.15 Academic staff: Reasons for entering academia (%) Table 5.16 Academic staff: Reasons for entering academia by type of university and by gender Table 5.17 Academic staff: Factors prompting career change to academia Table 5.18 Academic staff: Factors prompting career change to academia by type of university Table 5.19 First Destination, by degree (%) Table 5.20 Nature of study for those going into further study (%) Table 5.21 Breakdown of students entering employment in the Higher Education sector (by SIC code) (%) viii

13 Table 5.22 Occupation of graduates entering HE Table 5.23 First Destination, by degree and subject (%) Table 5.24 Research students: Importance of reasons for study Table 5.25 Research students: What best describes your career intentions? Table 5.26 Research students: Career intentions by degree subject (excerpt) (%) Table 5.27 Research students: Desired and probable jobs Table 5.28 Research students: Desired jobs, by subject Table 5.29 Research students: Importance of factors in career choice, cumulative % Table 5.30 Research students: The importance of elements of the academic job (%) Table 5.31 Research students: The importance of a permanent job, cumulative %..114 Table 5.32 Research students: Parental experience of teaching/research Table 5.33 Research students: HE Employment prior to current degree Table 5.34 Research students: HE Employment during current degree Table 5.35 Research students: HE Employment whilst student Table 5.36 Research students: How well does an academic career offer (%) Table 5.37 Research students: Perceptions of academic employment Table 5.38 Research students: Comparison of research students desired job attributes and expected attributes of an academic job Table 5.39 Research students: Contract type Table 5.40 Academic Staff: Hours of work in academic employment Table 5.41 Research students: Expected earnings in academia Table 5.42 Research students: Actual salary Table 6.1 Academic staff: Academic career expectations Table 6.2 Reported satisfaction in previous studies Table 6.3 Academic staff: Reported satisfaction (%) Table 6.4 Academic staff: Satisfaction by Gender Table 6.5 Academic staff: The aspects of teaching and job satisfaction Table 6.6 Academic staff: The aspects of research and job satisfaction Table 6.7 Academic staff: The effect of administrative and organisational aspects of academic employment and job satisfaction Table 6.8 Academic staff: Other aspects of academia and job satisfaction Table 6.9 Academic staff: Perceived fairness of decisions on individual pay, current university Table 6.10 Academic staff: Perceived fairness of decisions on promotion and recruitment to senior posts, current university ix

14 Table 6.11 Academic staff: Whether thinks academic jobs have improved since their first academic job in UK Table 6.12 Factor loadings for overall job satisfaction Table 7.1 Leavers: HEFCE-funded staff Table 7.2 Academic staff: Likelihood of moving to another UK university in the next year Table 7.3 Academic staff: Reasons for moving to another UK university in the next year and for not moving Table 7.4 Whether expects to stay in UK academia until retirement Table 7.5 Academic staff: Likelihood of leaving employment in UK Higher Education in the next year Table 7.6 Sector leavers: plans Table 7.7 Academic staff: Sector leavers: reasons for leaving Table 7.8 Academic staff: Whether has worked continuously in academia by subject Table 7.9 Academic staff: Total time spent working outside academia Table 8.1 Equal opportunities, staff beliefs Table 8.2 Childcare provision, staff with children Table 8.3 Adult care provision Table 8.4 Early retirement Table A.1 Case studies: subject areas Table A.2 Specialist institutions excluded from the sample Table A.3 Other institutions with fewer than 200 staff excluded from the sample Table A.4 University sample structuring Table A.5 Colleges of Higher Education Table A.6 Universities in London Table A.7 Academic staff on clinical rates Table A.8 Staff sample Table A.9 Student sample Table A.10 Weights Table A.11 Staff: comparison of characteristics: survey and HESA data Table A.12 Research students: comparison of characteristics: survey and HESA data Table A.13 Comparison of mean wages in LFS and HESA data Table A.14 Academic real earnings quartiles Table A.15 Academic real earnings deciles Table A.16 Variables used in empirical analysis x

15 Table A.17 UK Results Table A.18 US Results Table A.19 Variables used in empirical analysis of academic career intentions Table A.20 Ordered probit results: Academic career intentions Table A.21 Variable used in the analysis of job satisfaction Table A.22 Results satisfaction Table A.23 Including alternative salary Table A.24 Factor loadings for overall job satisfaction Table A.25 Variables used in analysis of likelihood of leaving Table A.26 Results Likelihood of leaving UK higher education xi

16 Figures Figure 3.1 Age Profile of Qualifications (% of staff)...60 Figure 3.2 Age Profile of Staff with Doctorates (% of staff)...61 Figure 4.1 Real earnings quartiles of full-time academics...74 Figure 4.2 Real earnings quartiles of full-time academics, men...74 Figure 4.3 Real earnings quartiles of full-time academics, women...74 Figure 4.4 Real earnings deciles of full-time academics, total...75 Figure 4.5 Real earnings deciles of full-time academics, Men...75 Figure 4.6 Real earnings deciles of full-time academics, women...76 Figure 4.7 Net earnings deciles of academics for the UK and France...76 Figure 4.8 Predicted lifetime wage profiles, UK...79 Figure 4.9 Predicted lifetime wage profile, US...80 Figure 4.10 Comparative predicted annual wage profiles...81 Figure 4.11 Predicted lifetime annual wage profile, US...83 Figure 5.1 UK and overseas domiciled students obtaining PhDs xii

17 Report summary S.1 The study The study seeks to identify the factors which lead to individuals entering and leaving academic employment in the English Higher Education sector. Although the main focus was entry and exit from the sector, recruitment to and retention by individual institutions can shed light on this and was also investigated. Academic employment was defined as jobs in higher education institutions (Universities and Colleges of Higher Education) whose main function was academic teaching or academic research, irrespective of the contractual terms of the job holder. Thus lecturing and research staff are included, but academic-related staff (e.g. technicians) are not. Full-time, part-time, permanent and temporary staff within these groups are included. However, the coverage of hourly paid staff is severely limited. (The study excluded staff in Further Education Institutions and those on clinical grades.) The study had five, inter-related, strands: a literature review conducted March to May 2003; the review covered the relevant academic and non-academic literatures in education, economics, management and human resources; it concentrated mainly on the last twenty years although it did include earlier work where relevant; analysis of HESA staff and student data, 2001/02, to provide a descriptive analysis of turnover in academia, to identify the basic characteristics of employment in the sector and to identify the student supply into academia; comparative analysis of pay both nationally and internationally, using 2001 data; qualitative research within universities exploring human resource policies and practices and factors affecting entry and exit from the sector; the fieldwork, involving face-to-face and telephone interviews, was conducted between July 2003 and July 2004; quantitative surveys of academic staff and of research students to identify factors which affect recruitment into academia and retention; the fieldwork was conducted between May and July Thus evidence used in the research relates to a range of periods and some Higher Education policies and practices may have changed subsequently. To assist the reader, the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) has produced a list of relevant Higher Education initiatives. These are listed in Appendix H. xiii

18 S.2 Recruitment and retention problems (Section 2.2, Section 2.3) The study did not identify severe recruitment and retention problems in the sector. However, some problems were apparent: vacancies sometimes remained unfilled and there was some reported decline in the quality of applicants. The extent of difficulty varied by subject and fluctuated over time. S.3 Pay (Chapter 4) Pay is one of the important factors in career and job choice, affecting both recruitment and retention. The study compared the pay of UK academics with highly qualified people in the rest of the economy and also compared the pay of UK academics with academics in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Sweden, France and Japan. Differences in data definitions, differences in the nature of academic jobs and differences in cost of living between countries prevent exact cross country comparisons. However, we are confident that our findings identify the broad scale of differences. Academic pay is low relative to that in other highly qualified jobs in the UK, which is likely to reduce entry to the sector (Section 4.4.2). (Retention is likely to be less responsive to pay differentials as careers progress, due, in many subjects, to a divergence in the skills developed in academia and those needed for senior jobs in other sectors.) UK academic pay 1 compares favourably with academic pay in Sweden, Japan, Australia and New Zealand (Section 4.3.2). UK academic pay is similar to that of Denmark, France and Canada. Pay in the US is higher for comparable academic staff and the difference is particularly marked at the top-end of the earnings distribution (Section 4.3.2; Section 4.4.3). Thus pay is likely to be a factor encouraging outflow of academics from the UK to the US, but also a factor easing recruitment from Sweden, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Whilst lower paying countries may prove a fruitful source of recruits, foreign recruitment should be viewed with some caution. Recruits from other EU (and EEA) countries, Australia, New Zealand and the US were identified as more likely to expect to leave UK academia and so reliance on foreign recruitment may lead to future retention problems (Section 7.3.2). S.4 Recruitment to the sector S.4.1 Pattern of recruitment The main sources of entrants to academia are students and employees in other sectors (Section 5.2): employees in other sectors (UK: 42 per cent; abroad: 21 per cent, including 11 per cent in academia abroad) 1 This section refers to real (as opposed to nominal) pay, i.e. once cost of living differences have been taken into consideration. xiv

19 students (34 per cent: 19 per cent UK domiciled students studying in the UK, 10 per cent foreign students studying in the UK; and five per cent students studying abroad) Many make a career change to enter academia, normally from higher level occupations (managerial, professional, associate professional and technical), rather than from lower level jobs (via being a mature student) (Section 5.3). Career changers were particularly common in new universities and in Business and administrative studies, Computing, Subjects Allied to Medicine, Education, Social studies and Engineering. Forty per cent of recruits are foreign (i.e. non-uk nationals). Amongst research students, non-british EU nationals were more likely to want to go into UK academia than other nationals (Section 5.2; Section 5.8). Entrants to academia tend to be recruited to fixed-term contracts in research, although the percentage entering to permanent contracts rises with age, suggesting that previous skills are relevant and recognised (Section 5.2). It appeared that the tendency to recruit to research jobs and to fixed-term contracts had grown over time. S.4.2 Reasons for entering academia Almost 40 per cent of research students were keen to have an academic career and a further 21 per cent saw this of equal interest to some other career (Section 5.6). Amongst existing academics just over one half had been keen to have an academic career. However, many research students and academics did not seriously consider alternative careers and, for those progressing from a research degree, entering academia appears often to be a form of drift, to a job which is known. A significant minority of research students saw academia as providing a stepping stone to another career (12 per cent), which is likely to reduce retention. The study examined what research students wanted from a career (Section 5.6.1) and which attributes they thought academia offered (Section 5.7). The main attraction of academic jobs to research students is doing research and setting one s own research agenda. A career offering research was very important to 63 per cent of research students. Only 30 per cent were strongly attracted by teaching. Only onethird of research students saw a high salary as very important in their career choice. Non-pecuniary aspects were more often important: most often a good working environment, variety, freedom to use initiative and seeing tangible outcomes from their job. Close behind these factors are autonomy in the job, control of their research, career prospects, collaboration and flexibility of working hours. Also important were good physical work conditions, helping people and job security. Broadly speaking, research students believed that an academic career offered the attributes they wanted from a career (Section 5.7). However, there are three important exceptions to this: career prospects, job security and high salary, none of which tended to be seen as good in academia. Slow career progression, lack of job security (particularly at the start of an academic career) and relatively low pay are likely to reduce the supply from this source. Research students appeared to be wellinformed about the nature of academic employment. However, they tended to underestimate academic pay and not to be aware of the additional financial benefits of university pensions. This is likely to reduce entry to academia (but also reduce xv

20 turnover) and so more information on pay may be useful in promoting academic careers among research students. For career changers, other motivations included a better lifestyle (36 per cent) or the desire for change (34 per cent) (Section 5.4). Few were driven through lack of further progression in their previous career outside of Higher Education (or being made redundant or retiring). Some of the factors prompting change to a career in Higher Education included stress in previous job, shift work, routine working and wanting variety at work, academia being more relaxed and informal, career progression requiring movement into management (and wanting to stay with one s profession). For art and design lecturers one factor appears to be to fund artistic practice. S.4.3 Satisfaction of academic staff (Section 6.3) Academic staff are somewhat less satisfied with their jobs than those in the workforce as a whole (Section 6.3.1). Academics appear to be considering three separate sets of elements of their jobs, namely the pecuniary factors (both the salary and the ability to earn money from additional work), non-pecuniary factors relating to the qualitative dimensions of the job and longer-term factors such as promotions and job security. The factors affecting satisfaction are discussed below (Section 6.3.3; Section 6.3.4). Research is a major source of satisfaction for academics and many academic staff would prefer to spend more of their time on research, although self-determined research tends to be of interest, rather than that determined by others. The demand for research output and the RAE in particular are seen rather negatively. Hours spent on research increase staff satisfaction with the actual work itself. Whilst teaching is not the most important reason for becoming an academic, most would prefer a job that involves teaching. Teaching bright students and seeing their students develop are the positive aspects of teaching. The negative aspects relate to assessment, both of the amount required of the students and that of the staff themselves. Administrative tasks and organisational change tend to be viewed as negative aspects of the job by most academics. Hours of work spent on administration have a negative effect on satisfaction with almost all dimensions of academics job satisfaction. Academic staff tend to value more subtle elements of their jobs, such as the support of their peers and the ability to participate in the wider academic community. Being on a fixed-term contract significantly reduces satisfaction. There was no difference between women and men in satisfaction (once one takes into account differences in other characteristics), except that women were more satisfied with salary (Section 6.3.4). This may be due to women having lower expectations of salary, due to discrimination in the labour market as a whole. Academics from ethnic minorities tended to be less satisfied with the opportunity they have to use their own initiative, the hours they work and their relations with their colleagues than their white colleagues (Section 6.3.4). This is xvi

21 likely to indicate that academics from ethnic minorities find themselves in less satisfactory jobs. S.5 Retention About two-thirds of academics expected to remain in UK academia until retirement (Section 7.2.2). This was higher in new universities. We would estimate that between three and six per cent would leave the sector in the year following interview. This comprised two to three per cent of those on permanent contracts and five to 11 per cent of those on fixed-term contracts. Forty-three per cent of those who thought they might leave the sector in the following year expected to move to another job; this was most commonly to a UK job outside research and teaching, to an academic job abroad or for fixed-term contracts staff, to a UK research job. Contract staff could be seen as being driven out of the sector due to insecurity: they tended to leave due to their contract ending, the desire for a permanent job or pessimism about job opportunities in UK academia. S.5.1 Factors affecting leaving the sector (Section 7.3) The following factors increased the likelihood of leaving the sector: dissatisfaction with non-pecuniary elements (the work itself, relations with manager, being able to use one s own initiative, hours, relations with colleagues and physical work conditions) being a non-british EU (and EEA) national, Australian, New Zealander or US national having had a break in one s academic career being on a non-permanent contract being closer to the end of a fixed-term contract hours worked hours spent on administrative tasks the fewer hours spent on research perception of excessive workload belief that decisions on either individual pay, recruitment to senior posts or promotion at their current university are not at all fair dissatisfaction with pay and the level of pay (but not estimated relative pay). A number of aspects of academic employment that staff feel are important for their satisfaction did not affect their likelihood of leaving. Those who said that the RAE, QAA requirements and the general direction of higher education policy lowers their satisfaction by a lot are no more likely to expect to leave UK Higher Education than those who do not. The likelihood of leaving was no different between those who had changed career to enter academia and those who had not. Nor did it differ by gender, ethnicity, or having children. Part-timers were no more likely to expect to leave the sector than full-timers. xvii

22 S.6 Discrimination and equal opportunities Discrimination, if worse relative to other employment, may exacerbate recruitment and retention difficulties amongst the discriminated against groups. The sparse, previous, evidence found differences in pay between ethnic minorities and whites and in promotion between women and men (Section ). This study found that, compared with whites, academics from ethnic minorities were less satisfied with a number of aspects of their job (Section and summarised in Section S4.3 above), which may suggest that ethnic minority academics find themselves in less satisfactory jobs. Whilst a number of factors may be advanced for these differences, discrimination (whether direct or indirect) cannot be ruled out and further research is required in this area. There was a commitment to equal opportunities in the case study universities at the level of policy, and many heads of department believed that men and women had the same opportunities for advancement, or at least that these were improving (Section 8.8). However, many of the staff believed that disability, age, religion and ethnicity as well as gender affected progression within Higher Education. Indeed, the percentage of staff who believed that these factors affected progression were 64 per cent (age), 44 per cent (gender), 38 per cent (disability) 26 per cent (ethnicity) and 10 per cent (religious affiliation). The qualitative research identified a number of possible reasons for women being disadvantaged, including unfair work allocation, sexism and a disproportionate impact on career progression of part-time working (Section 8.8.1). It was apparent, both from the survey and qualitative research that many staff had not considered the position and opportunities for other under-represented groups, which suggests that the diversity debate does not have a high profile amongst academics in UK universities. S.7 Raising the supply to the sector (Chapter 9) The key messages from the research about how supply to the sector could be increased are: increasing the supply of UK-domiciled students achieving a PhD (Section 5.2; Section 5.5.1); shifting the balance of academic job content towards research (Section 5.4; Section 5.6; Section 5.7); increasing pay (Section 5.6; Section 5.7); targeting foreign recruitment (with the caveat that this may increase retention problems) (Section 4.6; Section 5.2; Section 5.8; Section 7.3.2); increasing the job security of researchers (Section 5.6; Section 5.7); improving career progression for both lecturing and for research-only staff (Section 5.6; Section 5.7). These findings suggest there are a number of ways in which individual universities and the Government could raise retention of academics in the sector. Many, but not all of these would have financial implications. xviii

23 S.8 Improving retention (Section 7.3; Chapter 9) Throughout the study the message that academics were driven by the desire to do research and neither enjoyed administrative tasks nor always could see benefits of these was repeated. Changing the relative time spent on research and administration (without increasing total hours) and reducing administrative demands would be likely to increase retention, as would reducing the total time spent working. Approaches to this might include increasing the staff/student ratio, reducing structural change and reducing change in administrative demands and reducing the demands of quality reviews and inspections. Turnover is higher among academics who enter UK Higher Education as PhD students from overseas. Encouraging British students to undertake research degrees and so expanding the supply of UK-domiciled people with PhDs entering the sector is likely to increase retention. This might be achieved through more funding for PhD students or addressing the debt built up during earlier degrees. Turnover is high amongst researchers. This is largely due to the use of temporary contracts for most and the lack of career opportunities (in research). Addressing these two issues is likely to have a major effect on the loss of researchers from the sector. It may require imaginative approaches to deployment of both researchers and lecturers. Ensuring pay and promotion decisions are fair and seen to be fair would reduce loss of staff from the sector. Certainly, enhancing pay of recruits (above comparable levels for existing staff) and of valued staff expected to leave are regarded as unfair and excite strong feelings (Section 6.3.3; Section 8.9.2). Market supplements and Golden Handshakes are also seen as unfair. Performance pay must be implemented well to avoid perceptions of unfairness. However, even so, the problem of the average employee tending to believe their performance is above average and so deserving a higher than average pay rise, means that more employees are likely to be dissatisfied by performance pay than satisfied. Perceptions of the fairness of promotion decisions are likely to be influenced by the extent of opportunities for promotion: the more opportunity, the less important fairness becomes (and the more likely each individual will have experienced promotion). Thus expanding the opportunities for promotion is likely to increase retention, irrespective of other changes. It is also possible that the emphasis on promotion is, in part, a result of relatively low pay levels. If so, increasing the pay of academics is likely to increase retention also. S.9 Management and human resource practices (Chapter 8) Management and human resource practices differ across universities and can affect satisfaction. Most of the case study universities had mixed practices (good and bad) and seemed to be trying to address some of the problem areas. There appears to be a lack of communication and understanding between the academics and the university administration (including the human resource specialists), which probably increases the burden of administrative demands on academics (Section 8.9.1). xix

24 Implementation of human resource practices tends to be devolved. In old universities the post of head of department tends to be rotated every few years. Academics management and administrative responsibilities tend to be accorded little status. All these factors lead to lack of expertise and some poor practice. S.9.1 Recruitment practice and recruitment difficulties (Section 8.3) Replacement of staff tended to be slow (sometimes taking more than a year), due to the practice of reviewing the need for each vacant post (Section 8.3.1). This led to additional work demands on remaining staff. It was common to down-grade vacated posts (Section 8.3.1). Due to difficulties attracting good candidates, especially at senior levels and to some specialisms, active search methods had become common (using search committees and networks) (Section 8.3.2). Case study universities tended to overlook their own PhD students for recruitment. In the research-intensive old case study universities, due to the RAE, there was an increased emphasis on recruiting stars and poaching. This was expected to increase in the run up to the next RAE. The case study universities were practising flexibility over the pay offered to new recruits, but were uncomfortable with the idea of market supplements because of the discrepancies they can create (Section 8.3.3). Pay was seen as only one means to attract new recruits (Section 8.3.4). Other incentives included facilities, equipment and start-up funding. There were indications that these did not always meet recruits expectations, and it is possible that this could result in early turnover. S.9.2 Promotion and retention practices The criteria and transparency of promotion practices was found to vary between the case study universities (Section 8.4). Universities were concerned that the criteria used should take account of the range of academic activity, including research, teaching, administration and enterprise. However, research continued to be the preeminent criterion, and in new universities was of greater importance than in the past. The allocation of teaching and administrative responsibilities within university schools or departments was therefore becoming more important than in the past, because individuals with heavy teaching or administration loads were less able to carry out research and therefore achieve promotion. This was found to lead to considerable resentment. In some cases, to retain a member of staff, the formal process was bypassed, leading to strong dissatisfaction amongst other staff. Below professorial level, pay scales are set nationally (Section 8.5). However, case study universities were increasingly using pay incentives to keep valued staff, particularly those in hard to recruit subjects or senior research-productive staff. In some cases, this was formalised. In others the formal system was bypassed to award additional increments, for example, when a member of staff received another job offer. This was not normally seen (or found) to be effective and was thought to affect the morale of other staff. Although the case study universities had appraisal systems, these were sometimes of recent origin and were not linked directly to the promotions process (Section 8.6). Neither were they linked to training and development. Many staff were xx

25 not aware of the procedures and criteria for promotion. There was evidence of bypassing the formal promotions process. Such practices are likely to be perceived as unfair and to lead to dissatisfaction. In response to retention difficulties, case study universities were looking at progression and promotion, to make criteria more transparent and to ease the process of progression. Their main concern was to identify and reward strong performers and to encourage them to stay. Transparent systems to enable such progression are likely to be more acceptable to the academic workforce than practising covert deals with individuals. Although training is usually regarded as key to workforce retention, it was acknowledged that heads of department do not always have the skills needed to develop staff. The prevailing view was that academic staff are responsible for their own training and development (Section 8.6). However, there was evidence of an increase in attention to such issues, including management training for heads of department to assist them in identifying staff development needs (Section 8.4.3). xxi

26 xxii

27 1 Introduction Demand for academic staff in Higher Education has been increasing 2 and may be expected to continue to increase given the Government s intention that participation in Higher Education should increase substantially amongst those aged 18 to 30 years old. At the same time, recruitment and retention problems have been growing in prominence (HEFCE, 2003) and there has been a long-standing concern that the sector faces a retirement bulge, as academics from the 1960s expansion reach retirement. Consequently, there is concern about the adequacy of the future supply of academics. Other substantial changes in Higher Education in the past 10 to 20 years are likely to have contributed to the tightness of the academic labour market 3. Polytechnics were granted university status in 1992, changing their funding regime, their focus and the demands on staff. The number of students has grown substantially, a growth which has not been matched by staff increases resulting in a large increase in the student:staff ratio. Changes in funding have led to much greater emphasis on research output (through the Research Assessment Exercise, the RAE), teaching quality (through the requirements of the Quality Assurance Agency, the QAA) and on academics raising research and consultancy funds. Other changes include tighter contractual terms (affecting holidays and hours worked), an increase in the use of short-term and hourly-paid contracts and the loss of tenure. Overall, these changes have tended to alter the nature of the job, reducing autonomy and increasing the workload, including that of administrative and teaching tasks. At the same time, both the salaries and status of academics are perceived to have deteriorated relative to alternative careers (Halsey, 1992; Keep et al., 1996). Substantial change in the nature of any job is likely to increase turnover, as a mismatch develops between the nature of the job to which people were recruited and the actual job. If these changes tend to reduce the quality of the job, rather than just change it, and if the applicant requirements are not altered (and, probably, lowered), recruitment will also become more difficult. Both turnover and recruitment difficulties will be exacerbated by a relative decline in pay. 2 Between 1995 and 2000, the number of staff in HE (excluding staff in medical cost centres and those who were less than 40% FTE) increased by around 11% (HEFCE, 2002). 3 A market is said to be tight if demand is high relative to supply. In competitive markets, prices will adjust to bring demand and supply into line. In markets such as that for academic labour this may not happen for at least two reasons: first, the price of academic labour does not float because of the existence of national pay scales; second, the final product (higher education) is not itself sold on a competitive market. 1

28 1.1 Overview of the study Against this background, the study was designed to identify the factors which lead to individuals entering and leaving academic employment in the English Higher Education sector. Although the main focus was entry and exit from the sector, recruitment to and retention by individual institutions can shed light on this and was also investigated. For the purposes of the study academic employment was defined as jobs in higher education institutions (Universities and Colleges of Higher Education) whose main function was academic teaching or academic research, irrespective of the contractual terms of the job holder. Thus lecturing (e.g. Professors, and Lecturers) and research staff (e.g. Research Assistants, post-docs and Senior Research Fellows) are included, but academic-related staff (e.g. technicians) are not. Full-time, part-time, permanent and temporary staff within these groups are included 4. Two main groups of academics were excluded from the study: those in Further Education Institutions and those on clinical rates of pay. The resources of the study precluded inclusion of these two groups 5. Following discussion with the DfES, it was decided to focus on staff at English HEIs. This was done in order to prevent differences in the funding and structure of the HE sectors obscuring the analysis. Two exceptions to this rule are the analysis of the HESA data on research students and the chapter on international comparisons of pay (Chapter 4). These are discussed in more detail in sections and below (and in further detail in Appendix C and Appendix D). The study had five, inter-related, strands: a literature review to establish the nature of the recruitment and retention problems and to identify previous evidence on the factors affecting recruitment and retention; this was conducted from March to May 2003; analysis of HESA staff and student data, 2001/02, to provide a descriptive analysis of turnover in academia, to identify the basic characteristics of employment in the sector and to identify the student supply into academia 6 ; a comparative analysis of pay, using 2001 data, both for comparable employment nationally and for academics in Higher Education internationally, in order to establish the competitiveness of academic pay; qualitative research within universities exploring human resource policies and practices and factors affecting entry and exit from the sector; the fieldwork was conducted between July 2003 and July 2004; 4 However, the coverage of hourly paid staff is severely limited, owing to limitations in the HESA data (see below) and to practical difficulties of sampling for the survey (see below). 5 Inclusion of the former would have extended the study to Further Education Institutions. The latter have different terms, conditions and employment patterns from other academics in HEIs and so a larger sample would have been required to adequately cover this group. Staff on clinical rates accounted for five per cent of academic staff (HESA Individualised Staff Record 2001/2). 6 Analysis of more recent HESA data and of trends over time is contained in HEFCE (2005a) and HEFCE (2005b). 2