VIEWS: 9 PAGES: 17 POSTED ON: 6/23/2011
European comission Hirschman Mobility Among Academics of Highly Ranked EU Research Universities Regional innovation and growth: Theory, empirics and policy analysis Pécs, Hungary, March 31-April 1, 2011 Edward M. Bergman INTANGIBLE ASSETS AND REGIONAL ECONOMIC GROWTH KNOWLEDGE FLOWS SPATIAL: Uni-to-Uni SECTORAL: Uni-to-Market (academic mobility) (commercialization) Academics„ University Attempts Mandates OVERVIEW • Knowledge Flows, ERA and Mobility • Hirschman„s Unis • Mobility and Knowledge Flows • Mobility Factors • ERA-only Mobility • Conclusions European Research Area and Mobility • The EC Communication of January 2000 'Towards a European Research Area' identified increasing the number of mobile researchers in Europe European Research Area (EC, 2008) A more research-intensive and integrated as a central objective of constructing the ERA. The Communication also advocated the introduction of a European dimension to scientific careers. • In April 2007, the European Commission Green Paper on the European Research Area reconfirmed these two areas of action as important for the realisation of a European Research Area: a high level of mobility of researchers between countries and institutions and a full opening of academic research positions across Europe. • In 2008, the EC Communication on mobility and careers  proposed the development of a partnership with Member States to ensure that researchers across Europe could benefit from attractive careers and from the removal of barriers to their mobility (including the introduction of systematic open recruitment of European researchers). p. 119. • The report also stressed the need for a free circulation of knowledge across Europe and beyond, a circulation of knowledge without barriers. In 2007, the Green Paper on ERA and public consultation reconfirmed the importance of free circulation of knowledge across Europe, in the sense of collaboration in the production of science and technology and open access to scientific products, effective knowledge transfer between public research and industry as well as with the public at large and, finally, exploiting knowledge produced outside Europe. p. 126 members of an organization, whether a business, a nation or any other form of human grouping, have essentially two possible responses when they perceive that the organization is demonstrating a decrease in quality or benefit to the member: they can exit (withdraw from the relationship); or, they can voice (attempt to repair or improve the relationship through communication of the complaint, grievance or proposal for change) where there is loyalty to the organization, exit may be reduced, especially where options to exit are not so appealing (small job market, political or financial hurdles to emigration or moving) Hirschman, Albert O. (1970): Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. A.O. Hirschman„s Unis & Mobility Exit (Mobility), Voice and Loyalty • Institutions in transition (e.g., EU Unis) can retain Loyally-satisfied or otherwise immobile staff; the signals necessary for improvement of unsatisfactory conditions come from Voice or Exit activists. • Voice arises from academics who elect to stay and attempt to reform the institution from within, perhaps leading to eventual improvement. So long as Voice is seen as effective, exit is deferred. ProvostVoice, however, could provoke exit when it obstructs Voice. • Exit is the last choice made by those who see the likelihood or pace of improvements will not benefit them. For academics, this requires mobility to another university and—often in Europe—to another country or to other continents as well. Evidence of Academic Mobility and Knowledge Flows in Europe Austria 7 (plus 7) IAREG Web-surveys of University Academics Belgium 7 Czech 1 Denmark 4 Shanghai Top 500 European Universities Finland 6 (215 total: DE, EN, ES, FR, IT) France* 23 Germany 40 x6 disciplines/uni Greece 2 Biological sciences BOHR Physics Hungary 2 Chemical engineering PASTEUR Computer Science Ireland 3 Economics NORTH History Italy 22 Netherlands 12 x3 faculty members/dept. (including dept. director) Poland 2 1798 respondents (20.1%) Portugal 2 Slovenia 1 Spain 9 Sweden 11 Switzerland 8 (plus 4) IAREG 7 United Kingdom 42 Exit and Destination Models • Examine key mobility (exit) questions: „Assuming certain improvements in important career or living conditions were met, I would consider a different university post...“ ....in any of 5 continental regions, or combinations thereof ....where important career or living improvements would support the favorable consideration of a post in a new region (14 conditions) • Explanatory variables ....Hirschman Voice and Loyalty ....Academic activity ....Academic controls Independent Variables, definitions and hypothesized signs Hirschman Variables Control Variables -Tenure: Number of years at present post Physics -Vintage: Number of years since terminal degree History -Voice: Influence of academics on uni-governance Economics +ProvostVoice: Influence of administrators on uni-governance CompSci Biology UnitedKingdom Switzerland Sweden Academic/Demographic Variables Spain +PostDegMob: 6+ months in different post after graduation Portugal +ClassLoad: Teaching load in last 2 years Poland +PeerRevPubs: Peer-reviewed publications last 2 years Netherlands +Gender: Male Italy ?CollabProj: Research project w/Industry-funded collaborators Ireland -Commerce: Attempted commercialization of findings/skills Hungary ?PubSvs: Non-compensated public service Greece +SciPubs: Peer-reviewed scientific publications from research Germany -PolPubs: Client-sponsored reports, policy memoranda, etc. France Denmark Belgium Austria WHAT DRIVES EXIT MOBILITY (70%)? (Yes/No logistic regression: n=1606) LOYALTY: Hirschman confirmed… • Years post held (-) • Vintage of degree/year graduated (-) VOICE (in commercialization governance): • Own voice influential (-) • ProvostVoice influential (+) DEMOGRAPHIC: PostDegMob (+), Gender (+) NATIONAL UNI SYSTEM: A, CH, FR, DE, NL, SE, UK (+) / I (-) Disciplines: Economics (-) “Would you accept No a university post in a different region, N=1708 assuming improved conditions?” Under which Condition(s)? Yes „Important career or living improvements that “Assuming certain would support the favorable consideration of a improvements in important N=1280 post in a new region are“ (select 3 most important) career or living conditions Significant increase in salary were met, I would consider a university post in”: Promotion to a higher or permanent university position Austral Better working conditions ia Where To? Ability to work in language(s) I know More prestigious university or institute Fewer teaching and instructional obligations Europe Asia Less pressure for research and publication EU- only Stronger faculty colleagues and networks in my discipline (512) More intellectually engaged/ better trained student body No-EU (54) Equivalent or better pension and/or health benefits available Greater opportunities for pursuing my research Main Better living situation for me/ my familiy Focus North South America America Mixed Improves opportunities to work with firms or research organizations EU (714) Base case (multinomial logit) Fewer obligations in administration or committees Graphic 1. Is the number of potential exit destinations related to destination conditions? 60.00% 50.00% Destinations 1 2 3 4 5 Percent 40.00% Selecting Specific 30.00% Conditions 20.00% 552 (all but 40 EU-only) 10.00% 381 219 0.00% 62 62 Research Opportunities Higher Salary Promotion Family/Self QOL Less Admin. 66 Better Work Conditions Stronger Colleagues High Prestige Uni Stronger Students 552 Less Teaching Language Pref. Firm Contacts Soc. Benefits Less PubPress More interesting, which of these conditions are likely to affect the possible destinations of mobile academics? Sufficient resources are important to “…in research universities, quality of colleagues and of students is even more critical to attract qualified mobile new excellent people. In research universities, academics teaching load is also important. It's quasi- impossible to both do cutting-edge research and be an excellent teacher when the teaching load of a professor is close to 200 hours per year. The quality of the infrastructure is also very important. In the end, however, salaries still play a big role. They reflect the value that is given to a Jean-Claude Latombe, professor's work. Over time, low salaries are professor at Stanford demoralising, because they send a signal to the University's Artificial professors (even if they love their work) that they Intelligence Laboratory. are not highly valued. Higher salaries encourage http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/lato people to challenge themselves, precisely to mbe-innovative-universities-attract-top- researchers/article-181199 justify their salaries.” • Does the university set its own curriculum? Governance, autonomy, and • Does the university select its own students or is there centralized allocation? competitive conditions are also important to • To what extent does the university select its own professors? qualified academics • How much does the state intervene in setting wages? • Are all professors with the same seniority and rank paid the same wage? • Does the university's budget need to be approved by the government? • What share of the university's budget comes from core government Phillipe Aghion, professor of funding? economics at Harvard University Aghion, Dewatripont, Hoxby, • What share comes from research grants for Mas-Colell and Sapir (2009). http://www.nber.org/papers/w14851 which the university must compete? Multinomial Logit Outcome Variables Australia Europe Asia EU-only (512) Exclusive Loyalty No-EU (54) Total Exit North America South America Principal Mixed EU Comparison (714) Base Case Exclusive Loyalty to ERA? A Global Mobility Comparison multinomial logistic regression/rrr: n=1204 relative risk ratio (rrr): <1 favors „Mixed“ base; >1 favors ERA-Only; >1 favors no-ERA) • Improved research opportunities (ERA-only 0.7x) • Reduce teaching burdens (ERA-only 0.7x) • Improved salary objective (ERA-only 0.6x) • Stronger, more challenging colleagues (ERA-only 0.6x) • Stronger, better prepared students (ERA-only 0.6x) • Prestige of new post (ERA-only 0.5x) • National Uni Systems (UK: ERA-only 0.4x • Disciplines (History, CompSci, Biology: ERA-only 0.4x) • Tenure: ( NO-ERA 1.03) • Greece: ( NO-ERA 16.7) Improved benefits and reduced teaching load also favored base case, but each lacked definitive significance. Conclusions • Hirschman„s Loyalty and Voice variables are shown to significantly reduce Exit mobility, while ProvostVoice provokes exit, as hypothesized. Important university governance policy issues do affect academic mobility. • Two significant academic variables--male or previously mobile respondents—are likelier to Exit . (Several national university and three discipline controls also proved significant.) • Mobility within ERA (European Loyalty) is conditional: mobile respondents seek key conditions that could result in exit from ERA. May provide a focus for more effective ERA policies.
Pages to are hidden for
"Bergman"Please download to view full document