Assessing Achievement Relative to Opportunity: Evaluating and Rewarding Academic Performance Fairly - Discussion Paper

The Monash Futures strategy setsan ambitious agenda for change involving a range of strategies aimed at making Monash University one of the best universities in the world. The Academic Strengthening Frameworkand the Research Strategy are key initiativesof the strategy and are currently being implemented to promote a culture of excellence and achievement from all academic staff. These initiatives have involved the identification of clear quantitative and qualitative expectations and standards of academic performance in research, education and service. Faculty and discipline specific academic performance standards are now being utilised as part of recruitment, confirmation of appointment and probation, performance development discussions, the promotion and increments process and the recognition of high performance. Together, these will strengthen our position as a leading international University that fosters excellence in research and education.

As a large and broad-based university, Monashrecognises and appreciates that staff contribute to its vision of excellence in diverse ways. The University’s Social Inclusion Strategy, Equal Opportunity Policy and the Gender Equity Strategy 2010-2015 are testaments to Monash’s ongoing commitment to social justice and inclusiveness. Nonetheless, we continue to experience a distinct lack of diversity at senior academic levels with women representing only 1 in 5 professorial staff as at 31 March, 2010.Despite more than 20 years of equal opportunity for women in the workplace legislation in Australia and the implementation of in-house career development activities for women in most universities, progress on this measure continues to be slow. Further, where progress has been made, it is, “...role and portfolio specific, and fragile in the categories where the representative numbers are small.”[1]

How are we to make sense of this? It has been argued that the current lack of diversity (or acceptance of) within the academic workforce, particularly at senior levels and in disciplines such as science, engineering and technology represents a significant failure to fully utilise the talents and skills or certain groups of staff (for example, highly educated and talented women). This in turn, compromises the capacity of institutions to achieve their stated goals.[2], [3] This paper outlines a case for assessing merit by considering ‘achievement relative to opportunity’ within Monash’s new performance expectations and standards to provide the University with the opportunity to create a culture of both excellence and inclusiveness, able to attract and retain the very best of staff from around the world. This in turn, will support the University’s bold agenda for the future.

Background

Increasing numbers of highly trained womenare entering academia but thishas not resulted in significant changes to the representation of women in senior academic roles. These gender inequities cannot be attributed to any innate cognitive deficit or to a lack of drive and commitment in women.[4]Numerous scholars have argued that the perpetuation of gender inequities is the result of organisational cultures that create impediments to women’s advancement. In a paper examining the performance and advancement of women in academic science and engineering, the authors argue that:

Women’s participation, performance and advancement are not a simple function of their individual characteristics, such as prestige of doctoral origins, training or skills. Rather their participation and attainments also reflect and are affected by features of organisational contexts in which they work, including work climates and cultures, work structures, evaluative practices, and reward patterns, among other factors.[5]

While previous gender strategies focused on ‘skilling up’ women so that they could effectively compete within academia, the lack of change at senior levels suggests that other factors are at play. One of these factors appears to be a refractory set of assumptions about what constitutes the ‘ideal worker’ within the academic context. This typically tends to be someone with (a) an uninterrupted career trajectory (honours then PhD then academic career) and, (b) someone with limited domestic responsibilities enabling them to commit (more than) full-time hours to the job. Academia in particular it has been argued, has traditionally required its workers to have an, “...all consuming and exclusive career commitment”.[6]Those who are capable of fitting this profile tend to be highly valued and rewarded.

Unsurprisingly, many women do not fit the established expectations associated with the ‘ideal academic ‘. Research shows that academic women are more likely than academic mento have non-traditional career paths including later starts to academia and career breaks. [7], [8] Women also face significant challenges in meeting the expectations of an ‘ideal academic worker’ as their lives more often than men involve carer responsibilities (for infants, small children, teenagers and then elderly parents) which go on throughouttheir careers.[9] Women more than men therefore, tend tofeel an intractable tension between professional success and family duties[10],[11], [12]and competition between academic and family responsibilities is one of the main reasons women abandon the academy to seek work in more female-friendly workplaces,[13] or find themselves clustered in lower level academic positions having had to make ‘choices’ between work and family which men can avoid.[14]

Looming Skill Shortage and Wasting Talent

Recent research on Australia’s academic workforce has highlighted the likelihood of the challenges about to be faced by Australian universities regarding the sustainability and development of their academic workforce.[15],[16] In a recent newspaper article, it is noted that half the current academic workforce is over 50 and that up to 40% of academics are expected to retire over the next decade. This is an issue the author argues, because younger people are being put off an academic career due to limited job security and poor pay.[17] Further threats to universities being able to adequately replace retiring staff are outlined in a recent study examining the attitudes and priorities of the generation following those about to retire. This study found that this cohort is less keen on the long hours work culture traditionally associated with academia and less likely to sacrifice family life for advancement.[18]

Women now make up an increasing proportion of undergraduate students, are well represented in honours completions and account for nearly half of all doctoral completions. The percentage of female academics is also on the increase.[19] For example, in 1999 at Monash University, women comprised 38% of the academic workforce but by 2010, made up 47.5% of all academic staff.[20]In a paper examining women’s less than expected participation rates in research, Bell and Bentley argue that given the similar levels of capability (as evidenced by the undergraduate and post-graduate participation and success rates), women should be able to aspire to levels of achievement comparable to males in the sector. Life circumstances (such as delaying entry to the academy, undertaking periods of part-time work, taking career breaks to care for children or aging parents) do not alter one’s capacity to produce high quality work, but may impact on the quantum of productivity. Organisational cultures which do not provide support and flexibility to female academics are creating impediments to them reaching the highest levels of success.[21] This in turn means that academia is failing to capture and capitalise on this (women’s) talent.[22]This sentiment is expressed in the federal government’s consultation paper, Meeting Australia’s Research Workforce Needs, where it is acknowledged that, “...inequities in the progression of men and women to senior roles persist, suggesting that Australia is wasting considerable potential within its research workforce.” [23]

Monash’s new Research Strategy highlights the significant effort required at all levels of the University and the need for a ‘critical mass of research effort’ in our pursuit of excellence. It also points to the new focus of making our research relevant to the ‘real world’. That is, research must not only be excellent but have impact and relevance, generating substantial positive impact in the various communities that we engage with and serve. Women make up 50% of the population. If we want our research to be ‘relevant’ then it needs to address the issues that are in women’s lives and make positive contributions to addressing these issues. While this does not preclude men from researching topics relevant to women, it is likely that the more women we have doing research, the more likely it will be that our research is relevant to a broader sector of the community.

Assessing achievement relative to opportunity - A way to maintain a commitment to excellence while capitalising on the talents of all staff

A concept currently being adopted in a bid to manage a less traditional and more diverse workforce is that of ‘assessing achievement relative to opportunity’. This principle acknowledges that the historicalidea of full-time worker with an uninterrupted career trajectory(and the normative work practices that are associated with this worker)no longer matches the profile of many current employees who bring with them a range of personal characteristics, career histories and required employment arrangements.Assessing achievement relative to opportunity is an evaluative frameworkthat provides positive acknowledgement of what staff can or have achieved given the opportunities available and is notabout providing ‘special consideration’ or expecting lesser standards of performance . It also more accurately and equitably assesses the performance of all staff. This approach:

  • Views volume of productivity as being related to time available to produce. Quantity, rate, consistency and breadth of activities are seen as reflecting amount of time available and not necessarily talent, merit or excellence.
  • Does not required a reduction in standards of quality and impact of achievements but does challenge normative expectations about quantity and rate of as being applicable to all staff
  • Focuses on skills and capabilities whilst avoiding inadvertent assessment against a notional standard of full-time, uninterrupted career progression where this does not apply.
  • Better facilitates mobility between academia and other sectors by supporting the advancement of those who do not have an uninterrupted publishing track record.[24]
  • Provides a more nuanced approach to career development and progression by taking into account the diversity of life circumstances of employees.

It is the contention of this paper that an ‘achievement relative to opportunity’ approach differs from the more familiar ‘special consideration’ or ‘relevant circumstances’ approachesin that these contain within them a singular notion of ‘normal’ work arrangements/practices performance standards, and failure to achieve these is viewed as ‘under-performance’. This can be seen in the language used around special consideration and relevant circumstanceswhere applicants are asked to highlight how performance has been ‘negatively affected’ or to describe the ‘adverse effects’ of the circumstances on career activities. There may be instances when staff wish to use a special consideration approach. However, wide scale use of an ‘achievement relative to opportunity’ approach within employment-related issues would assist in challenging a singular norm against which the performance of all staff should be measured. Instead, assessing achievement relative to opportunity acknowledges a range of different employment ‘positions’ or ‘practices’, ones which are shaped by personal circumstances, working arrangements and career histories. A full-time and uninterrupted career trajectory and the volume of productivity associated with this would be just one of a range of practices.

Assessing Achievement Relative to Opportunity and the New Performance Standards

How can this approach be incorporated into the University’s new performance expectations and standards? In 2010, Monash began the work of formalising a set of academic performance standards across the three key areas of academic activity – research, education and service. The standards are both qualitative and quantitative. Assessment against qualitative standards of performance are consistent with the an achievement relative to opportunity approach but the interaction of the quantitative performance standards and achievement relative to opportunity may seem incongruous at first. However, performance against quantitative performance standards can take into account achievements relative to the opportunities available to the individual. For example, a candidate who was absent on parental leave for a proportion of the year leading up to a promotion application may not have published the number of publications required per annum for an academic at that level. However, on a pro-rata basis, the number of publications produced was sufficient and were of the quality and impact expected at the level to which the candidate was aspiring.Maintaining a balance between the integrity of performance metrics and the achievement relative to opportunityapproach may appear difficult at first and will require shifts in how decision-makers make assessments about performance. However, it is possible to implement this approach as evidenced by the examples below.

Successful Examples of Using an Achievement Relative to Opportunity Approach

In 2010, the Australian Research Council Discovery Project Funding Rules for funding commencing in 2011 and 2012 were changed. The term ‘track record’ was replaced with ‘research opportunity and performance evidence.’ All Discovery Projects Proposals for 2011 which met the eligibility criteria were assessed and merit ranked using this selection criterionfor investigators. Applicantswere provided with the opportunity to indicate:

  • Number of years since graduating with highest educational qualification
  • Research opportunities had in the context of the employment situation, the research component of the employment conditions and any unemployment or part-time employment
  • Type of position - research only, teaching and research, teaching-only, teaching and administration, research and administration - candidates asked to give an indication of the percentage of time spent over the last five years in these roles
  • Career interruptions had for childbirth, carer responsibilities, misadventure or debilitating illness
  • Research mentoring and research facilities available
  • Any other aspects of career or opportunities for research that are relevant to assessment and that have not been detailed elsewhere in the proposal

ARC Chief Executive Professor Margaret Sheil stated that the new criterionwas adopted because ‘track record’ tends to favour those with an uninterrupted career and disadvantage women. The new selection criterion allows researchers to explain times in their career where they were not actively working in academia.For the first time ever, the ARC recorded a success rate for women equal to that of their male colleagues in gainingDiscovery Project funding.[25]

Monash University has also seen impressive results in the new Talent Enhancement Strategy where assessment was based substantially on the recent research track record of applicants relative to opportunity. By providing details of employment status for a 3 year period (which could include FTE status, career interruptions, etc), assessors were able to fairly compare the outcomes of high performing researchers. All applicants were initiallyprovided with a ‘research opportunity’ figure. A 100% research opportunity figure was given to a full-time, Research Only applicant. A full-time, Teaching and Research applicant was given a 50% research opportunity. Someone away on maternity leave for 9 months was considered to have 0% research opportunity during that time. Each applicant’s publication volume was then adjusted by the amount of research opportunity available and then scaled up so that comparisons could be made between applicants with different working arrangements and career histories. No distinction was made between the reasons for reduced research opportunity. While the number of women applying for the Talent Enhancement Strategy grants was lower than the number of men, the success rates for male and female applicants across all three programs (the Monash Researchers Accelerator program, the Monash Professorial Fellowships program and the Larkins Fellowships program) were identical (41.1% and 41.2%).

Conclusion

The ‘achievement relative to opportunity approach’supports Monash to:

  • develop workplace policies and processes which acknowledge that an increasing number of staff have personal characteristics (carer responsibilities, health issues), working arrangements (part-time, flexible hours) and career histories (delayed, interrupted or transitions to other sectors) that do not match the traditional idea of an academic - that is someone who works full time and has a linear career trajectory within academia
  • have in place fair and equitable evaluative processes and reward structures that acknowledge that those who do not match the profile of the traditional academic worker are not less talented, committed or ambitious and can produce work that is of excellent quality and high impact
  • prepare for generational changes in attitudes to work to academia
  • attract and retain the very best of staff in an increasingly shrinking andglobally competitive labour market

Recommendations

1:Distribute draft discussion paper and guidelines for decision-makers to colleagues for comment and feedback.

2:Following feedback, develop a process for incorporating an ‘achievement relative to opportunity approach’ within:

Recruitment and selection processes

Eligibility criteria for developmental opportunities (such as OSP, internal grants)

Performance development and appraisal procedures

Reward and recognition systems, including confirmation of appointment and academic promotion

3:Review relationship between new academic performance standards and an achievement relative to opportunity approach, and develop guidelines for assessing achievement relative to opportunity whilst maintaining the integrity of the new standards.

4:Develop guidelines for staff on how to present evidence of achievements relative to opportunity and on how to make the best possible case (e.g. for promotion) when one’s career has not followed or does not follow a traditional academic career path.

This paper was prepared by Barbara Dalton, Coordinator, Women’s Leadership and Advancement Scheme (Equity and Diversity Centre) in consultation with the Equal Opportunity for Women Committee subcommittee on Assessing Achievement Relative to Opportunity whose members included Associate Professor Robin Bell (Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences), Dr Anita Devos (Faculty of Education), Associate Professor Julie Fisher (Faculty of Information Technology), Ms Sarah Fowler (Workforce Policy & Performance, HR) Ms Andrea Heyward (Planning & Performance HR) and Professor Kate Smith-Miles (Faculty of Science).