Accountability Measures in Higher Education and Academic Workload: A Ten-year Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the core of New Public Management (NPM) reforms sit the concept of accountability of publicly funded organizations. In Canada, it is suggested that provinces have increased the number of accountability procedures imposed to universities and those measures would have had an impact on professors' academic workload. This study relies on the Canadian faculty's perspectives collected through the 2007 Changing Academic Profession (CAP) study (n = 1151) and the 2017 Academic Profession in the Knowledge Society (APIKS) study (n = 2968). Descriptive statistics and a MANOVA comparing the scores of five variables in 2007 and 2017 suggest that academic workload increased significantly in ten years, academic acvities are significantly more evaluated, although less by academics themselves, female academics report dedicating more time to administrative tasks and being more frequently evaluated, and senior administrative staff and external reviewers are perceived as being more involved in the evaluation of academic activities in 2017 than in 2007. Our interpretation is that accountability measures could increase professors' admministrative burden and grant more authority to non-academic staff. Key words: accountability; academic workload; academic profession; new public management; Canadian universities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".