Two universities were selected to participate in the project as case studies, one public and one private, both from Bucharest and both with the main activities in the economics field. Both universities agreed to participate. A letter of support was obtained from the rectors in order to induce higher participation of academic and managerial staff in the study. The data collection methods used were recorded in-depth interviews, and as an alternative option, filling in a questionnaire. For the in-depth interviews it was used an interview guide. See Appendix no. 3.1. The topics and questions from the interview guide were summarized and it was conceived a questionnaire to be distributed, as an alternative option for those who could not or do not wish to be interviewed.
The public university has a total of 760 academic staff and an approximate 25% sample was envisaged to be interviewed for the present study, representing 185 persons. The private university has a total of 147 academic staff and a 50% sample was envisaged to be interviewed for the present study, representing 81 persons. The percentages of 25% and 50% respectively were kept to the possible extent at the level of each academic position.
At the public university, from the total sample of 185 academic staff, 131 participated in the study, representing a response rate of 70.8%, while the non response rate was 29.2%. Table no. 3.1. presents the total number of employees, the size of the sample and the response rates for the academic staff structured on academic positions.
|
Faculty and professors’ academic position |
Total
|
Number of persons in the sample |
Positive answers |
Negative answers |
Rate of response |
||||
|
% |
value |
TOTAL |
interview |
quest |
interview |
quest |
% |
||
|
TOTAL |
760 |
24.3 |
185 |
131 |
86 |
45 |
7 |
56 |
70.8 |
|
Professors |
209 |
25.8 |
54* |
27 |
18 |
9 |
3 |
33 |
52 |
|
Senior-lecturers |
103 |
29.1 |
30 |
25 |
14 |
11 |
2 |
3 |
83.3 |
|
Lecturers |
198 |
20.2 |
40 |
26 |
17 |
9 |
1 |
13 |
65 |
|
Assistant professors |
148 |
22.9 |
34 |
29 |
20 |
9 |
1 |
4 |
85.2 |
|
Junior assistants |
102 |
26.4 |
27 |
24 |
17 |
7 |
0 |
3 |
88.8 |
* all of them being on managerial positions
There were 3 faculties where the response rate was higher than in the others, as in these faculties the academic staff is more connected with the outside world explaning the higher openness and co-operation in the study. In case of one faculty, another explanation for the high rate of response is the fact that researchers were members of the academic staff of this faculty and around 60% of the persons contacted accepted to participate to the study as a personal favor to the researchers. There were encountered difficulties in two faculties. In the case of one faculty the head of the chair insisted to control the process and to select himself the people to be part of the sample. This transformed the process into a controlled one and academics, mostly those holding inferior academic position became reticent and concerned about their careerprobably being less sincere in their answers. In another faculty, one influential member of the faculty forbid the others to participate in the study.
Around 60% of the respondents who were not part of the faculties’ management or heads of departments even-though they agreed and participated in the study, they showed some reservation about their inclusion into the sample and they mentioned that they did not consider themselves representative for the academic staff. It was mainly the case of the assistant professors and the junior assistants who do not consider themselves as relevant for the study, due to the fact they that spent less than 5-6 years as members of the teaching staff so they were not able to catch the process of higher education reform from its very beginning.
Generally the duration of an interview was on average 45-50 minutes for the teaching assistant and junior teaching assistants, one hour for senior lecturers and lecturers and around 1 hour and 20-30 minutes for the professors and heads of departments. The longer duration of an interview for those holding upper academic positions can be explained by two factors: either they had more information about the topics discussed or when they did not know the answer they tried to ‘build’ an answer and to indicate the way they considered the things should be as opposed to others who would simply admitt that they do not know.
In the case of questionnaires, their collection was made with difficulty as, none of the respondents handed in the completed questionnaires at the first established date, there were necessary 4-6 subsequent contacts to collect a filled in questionnaire. The most frequently mentioned motivation for the delays was the high complexity of the questions (70%).
Table no. 3.2. presents the response rate of the management within the public university
|
Academic Management |
TOTAL |
Positive answers
|
Negative answers |
Rate of response (%) |
||
|
TOTAL |
Interviews |
Questionnaires |
||||
|
TOTAL |
65 |
25 |
11 |
5 |
32 |
38.4 |
|
University level TOTAL of which: |
6 |
4
|
4 |
0 |
2 |
66.6 |
|
Rector |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
Vice-rectors |
5 |
4 |
4 |
0 |
1 |
80 |
|
Faculties’ level TOTAL of which: |
59 |
21 |
13 |
8 |
30 |
35.5 |
|
Deans |
9 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
8 |
11 |
|
Vice-deans |
24 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
16* |
20.8 |
|
Head of departments |
26 |
15 |
10 |
5 |
6** |
57.6 |
* 3 persons could not be found to be surveyed; ** 5 persons could not be found to be surveyed
Consequently, the 29.2% rate of non-response has as main motivations as mentioned by our non-respondents the following:
While the overall response rate was good 70.8%, it can be noticed that the response rate was much lower at the level of management, being only 38.4%. More co-operative was the superior management at the academy level, for which we had a 66.6% rate of response, while at the level of faculties and departments only 21 out 59 persons participated in the survey (35.5%). At the level of faculties a big difference was between heads of departments who participated in a larger proportion 57.6% and the administrative offices (deans and vice-deans) whose participation rate was 25.6%, in spite of the fact that they been contacted on average 4-5 times (when they did not refuse from the very beginning to participate).
At the private university, from the total sample of 50% of the academic staff representing 81 academics, 63 participated in the study, representing an overall response rate of 77% and 42% of the total number of academic employees of the university. Table no. 3.3 presents the total number of employees, the size of the sample and the response rates for the academic staff structured on academic positions.
It can be noticed that higher response rates were registered at academics with lower academic positions, as compared to academics with higher academic positions. Also between faculties, The highest rate of respondents (more than 50%) was at one faculty from the 6 faculties, situation explained by the fact that the teachers of these faculties knew very well the researcher who was working as junior assistant at this faculty. This fact offered them a guarantee of the confidentially for their answers. It was also much easier to contact them many times personally, to find an opportunity to meet for the interview.
The lowest rate of response (under 50%) was at the Law Faculty and it can be explained by the fact that around 90% of the professors of this department are involved also in other juridical activities as magistrates or lawyers. They offered as refusal excuse the “lack of time” and the fact that they are “not involved in the university activities”, even though they are fully-employed.
|
Faculty and professors academic position |
Total |
Number of persons in the sample |
Positive answers |
Negative answers |
Rate of response |
||||
|
|
value |
% |
value |
TOTAL |
interview |
quest |
interview |
quest |
% |
|
TOTAL |
147 |
55 |
81 |
63 |
41 |
22 |
7 |
19 |
77 |
|
Board of university |
3 |
100 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
100 |
|
Academics Total |
144 |
54 |
79 |
60 |
39 |
21 |
7 |
19 |
75 |
|
Board of faculties |
11 |
100 |
11 |
9 |
9 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
82 |
|
Professors |
18 |
72 |
13 |
6 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
6 |
46 |
|
Senior-lecturers |
12 |
60 |
8 |
5 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
62 |
|
Lecturers |
15 |
46 |
7 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
71 |
|
Assistant professors |
51 |
49 |
26 |
17 |
11 |
6 |
2 |
7 |
65 |
|
Junior assistants |
37 |
56 |
21 |
18 |
11 |
7 |
0 |
3 |
85 |
Twenty three percent of the academic staff included in the sample, did not participate in the study. The main reasons invoked for the non participation were:
1. 10% of the non-respondents accepted in the beginning to fill in the questionnaire or to be interviewed, but they changed their minds after they find out details. “I don’t know to answer. I prefer not to be included in the project”
2. 20% refused to be interviewed or to fill in the questionnaire from the beginning for various reasons: “I am too old” or I am a lawyer/magistrate, so I don’t want to be included in the project”.
3. 20% of the non-respondents motivated the fear of the effects of their answers. “I don’t want to have problems, I prefer not to answer. Sorry, I hope you don’t mind”.
4. 20% of non-respondents had delayed 3 –4 times the interview. 10% of them finally refused, and 10% accepted hardly to fill in a questionnaire, but only half of them returned it.
5. 40% of the non-respondents accepted to fill in the questionnaire but they could not be find to recuperate it, even though they were looked for many times by phone. They did not return the questionnaires. (20%).
While the lack of time, the fear of the consequences and the reluctance to be questioned, were the main reasons for non-responses, these aspects were also affecting those who did participate in the study. Eighty percent of the respondents accepted to cooperate because they knew the researcher and not because they wanted to be included in the sample or to cooperate at any project. Some of them (20%) did not see any utility of the study asking questions such as “Why do you do this? What are your advantages?” Other 10% of the respondents limited the length of the interview to 20 minutes.
However in spite of the difficulties the overall response rate was high, 77% with 100% response rate at the level of the board of the university and 82% response rate at the level of faculties board and 75% at the level of faculties.
Comparison of academic participation between the two universities:
If we look at the two universities, we can notice that the response rates were in the similar range for both, with a higher response rate at the private university 77%, as compared to 70.8% at the public university. One explanation can be in the much larger size of the public university 760 academics in total, as compared to 147 in the private one and correspondingly the differences in sample size, 185 in the public university and 81 in the private university where the same academics were teaching in more faculties.
However the large difference was in the case of management, who participated to the study to a larger extent in the private university 85.2% than in the public university 38.4%.
The same difficulties can be encountered in both universities: reluctance to participate, the need to contact the persons numerous times (5-6 times) before getting participation or a ferm negative answer, failing to keeping appointments from some of the respondents.
Similarly in the two universities, the belonging of the researchers to the academic communities of some faculties made the data collection easier. Another similarity was the fact that in both universities those who had extra university activities (teaching in other universities, research, business, community work) were more open to participate and frankly discuss with the interviewers, while those whose only job was within the universities were more reluctant to participate and were more rigid while talking and trying to avoid answers. At the same time from those with extra university activities (especially those involved in politics, law and those with managerial positions outside the university) refused from the very beginning to participate due to the lack of time and some could not even be found at all.
To conclude, in both universities in spite of the difficulties, a high proportion of academics participated in the study and a good picture over the perception of the reform and its implementation can be obtained from it.