Academics’ perceptions regarding performance evaluations and the consequences for their professional and personal activity

Academics’perceptions regarding performance evaluations and the consequences for their professional and personal activity Javier Mula-Falc on and Katia Caballero Department of Didactics and School Organisation, Faculty of Education, University of Granada, Granada, Spain Abstract Purpose –Improving and assuring the quality of higher education has become a key element of policy agendas worldwide. To this end, a complete accountability system has been developed through various evaluation procedures. Specifically, this study analyzes the perceptions of university teaching staff on the impact of performance appraisal systems on their professional activity, health and personal lives. Design/methodology/approach –The study adopted a nonexperimental descriptive and causalcomparative design using a questionnaire that was completed by a sample of 2,183 Spanish teachers. The data obtained were analyzed using descriptive statistics and comparisons of differences. Findings –The results show that, according to teachers, the evaluation criteria undermine the quality of their work by encouraging them to neglect teaching, increase scientific production and engage in unethical research practices. Their views also emphasize the social and health-related consequences of an increasingly competitive work climate, including increased stress levels. Finally, significant differences are observed regarding gender, professional category and academic discipline, with women, junior faculty and social sciences teachers expressing particularly strong views. Originality/value –The originality of this study lies in the application of a method that contributes to the international debate through a national perspective (Spain) that has so far received little attention. Keywords Quality, Accountability, Academics’performance evaluations, Higher education, Academics perception, Bologna process, Consequences, Quantitative study Paper type Research paper 1. Introduction Improving and assuring the quality of higher education has become a central element of policy agendas worldwide, impacting all levels of the sector and becoming an essential, everyday element of academic life (Huisman et al., 2015;Browning et al., 2017). The aim of these changes was to achieve a quality higher education system that is globally competitive Academics’ perceptions © Javier Mula-Falc on and Katia Caballero. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode Fundings: This work was funded by FEDER/Junta de Andaluc ıa-Consejer ıa de Transformaci on Econ omica, Industria, Conocimiento y Universidades/El Profesorado Novel en las Universidades Andaluzas: Identidades acad emicas, cuantificadas y digitalizadas (B_SEJ-534-UGR20); by the State Research Agency, Spanish Ministry of Science, and Innovation, through the project “The influence of neoliberalism on academic identities and the level of professional satisfaction”— NEOACADEMIC— (PID2019-105631GA-I00/SRA (State Research Agency)/10.13039/501100011033); and by the grants for the support and promotion of research by the University of Granada in the field of equality through the project “Gender inequalities in the new managerialist university and their impact on women academics—DAMA—” (INV-IGU199-2022). This project has also received funding from the Ministry of Universities (Spain) through the University Teacher Training Grants Programme (FPU19/00942). The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/2050-7003.htm Received 5 May 2023 Revised 11 July 2023 Accepted 21 August 2023 Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education Emerald Publishing Limited 2050-7003 DOI 10.1108/JARHE-05-2023-0183 and capable of generating lasting economic development (Tomicic, 2019). Despite this, defining the term “quality”is complex as it is a polysemous, contextual concept with a significant ideological component (Tasopoulou and Tsiotras, 2017). Therefore, what we mean by quality will depend entirely on the actors who define it (Schindler et al., 2015). In this sense, Harvey (2006) asserts that quality assurance in higher education encompasses both enhancement (development) and control (accountability) and that the emphasis or balance between the two will depend directly on the governmental vision and the degree of autonomy and trust (Stensaker and Maassen, 2015). Traditionally, quality assurance in higher education has focused on improvement, which has often taken the form of evaluation processes created by the institutions, making use of self-reports or peer review (Hazelkorn, 2018). However, changes in higher education (e.g. massification, specialization, globalization and new teaching challenges) have made these forms of evaluation scarce (Pattaro et al., 2022). As a result, recent decades have witnessed reforms aimed at improving the quality of the sector. This shift has necessitated the introduction of external evaluation processes (in most cases controlled by independent agencies and materialized in accreditation systems) focusing on various elements including curricula, mobility schemes and faculty (Stensaker, 2018). Moreover, these evaluation processes have been linked to certain incentives (e.g. funding, prestige, tenure or career advancement) (Dougherty and Natow, 2019). This system has developed into an accountability process with a clear objective of quality control, autonomy and performance (Macheridis and Paulsson, 2021;Huisman, 2018). Consequently, there has been a shift from a quality discourse focused on improvement to one focused on fostering control, competitiveness and comparability (Stensaker, 2018). Despite this, current discourses uphold the belief that these evaluation processes are true instruments of transparency, democratic validity and quality improvement (Huisman, 2018; Gunn, 2018). However, the lack of evidence supporting the notion that these evaluation processes produce improvements (Pattaro et al., 2022;Macheridis and Poulson, 2021) leads us to consider them as a simple method of control, reward or punishment (Huisman, 2018;Gunn, 2018) that directly affects the staff involved (university faculty) and, therefore, their institutions (Dugas et al., 2020;Jim enez, 2019;Ursin et al., 2020;Huang et al., 2016). These teachers are required to undergo continuous evaluation processes that determine their academic trajectory (Ma and Ladisch, 2019;San Fabi an, 2020;Laiho et al., 2020;Harvey, 2020). All this has consequences on work performance (prioritization of research over teaching, development of unethical practices, promotion of scientific production), on social and family relations (sacrifices of family and free time, problems with parenthood, etc.) and on the health of university teaching staff (stress, anxiety, etc.) (Bol ıvar and Mula-Falc on, 2022;Bozzon et al., 2017;Acker and Webber, 2016;El-Far et al., 2020;Lipton, 2020;Hortal and Tang, 2023;Harris et al., 2019). Consequently, Saura and Bol ıvar (2019) point out the enormous “manipulative” power of these evaluations since the continuous quest to meet these criteria has a profound impact on teachers’ways of doing. In other words, the struggle to pass these assessments leads teachers to do whatever the assessment criteria demand, meaning that their academic output will largely depend on such criteria. Therefore, in this study, we sought to ask university teaching staff about their views regarding the impact of these performance evaluations on the development of their professional activity, health and personal life. In other words, we wanted to determine if these accountability systems truly promote improvement and development or, on the contrary, whether they run counter to the objectives, values and functioning of the university, negatively impacting the quality of work and promoting job insecurity, competitiveness and individualization (Djerasimovic and Villani, 2019;T€ ul€ ubass and G€ okt€ urk, 2020). Furthermore, we aimed to establish whether these perceptions differ according to three JARHE fundamental variables: gender, professional category and academic discipline. Therefore, the main objectives of this study are as follows: (1) To determine university teachers’perceptions of the assessment criteria used to evaluate their professional activity. (2) To describe the main influences/consequences generated by the evaluation criteria on their professional and personal activity. (3) To determine the differences in the perceptions of the evaluation criteria according to certain demographic variables (gender, professional category and academic discipline). (4) To determine the differences in the perceived impact of the criteria on professional and personal activity according to various demographic variables (gender, professional category and academic discipline). A quantitative study was conducted on a sample of Spanish teachers to answer these objectives. We focus on the Spanish context for several reasons. First, few studies have been conducted on Spanish teachers in this field of research (Mula-Falc on and Caballero, 2022). Second, the Spanish higher education system has a long tradition (more than 20 years) of developing and applying accountability processes due to the influence of the Bologna Plan. Third, because Spain is in a period of transition in its university policy in which scientific evidence is needed to contribute to the social and political debate. Furthermore, the quantitative approach was selected because (1) there is a scarcity of studies using this approach (Mula-Falc on and Caballero, 2022) and (2) it allows obtaining more comprehensive and objective data that contribute to making inferences and comparisons between contexts. To this end, in this article, we will first describe the evaluation procedures used for Spanish university teaching staff. The methodology will then be explained, and the results will be presented. Finally, the results will be discussed, and a series of conclusions and future lines of research will be proposed. By meeting the objectives described above, we aim to (1) delve deeper into the state of this issue in the Spanish context; (2) contribute to the international debate through a national perspective that has so far received little attention; and (3) contribute to two of the sustainable development goals, namely, SDG 4 (quality education) and SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth). 2. The quest for quality in the Spanish context: accreditations The Bologna Plan –or Bologna Process –was designed to achieve a complex transformation of the European university system that began in 1999. This process aimed to promote the homogenization of European Higher Education by developing a common framework (European Higher Education Area), which would allow educational harmonization, comparability and free movement of students or employability, among other aspects (Brøgger, 2019). One of the main pillars of the Bologna Plan was to guarantee the quality of the European university system in all areas, including teaching, research, mobility, teaching staff and institutions. To this end, and in line with international policy, a series of agreements and treaties were developed to create evaluation designs, criteria, methodologies, guidelines and certification mechanisms to ensure the quality of the European higher education system. Furthermore, this process led to the development of national accreditation agencies following the guidelines proposed by the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, a European network aimed at promoting the enhancement and maintenance of quality in higher education. Academics’ perceptions From the outset, Spain has been immersed in this process of European convergence, which began to materialize in 2001 with the Organic Law on Universities and in 2002 with the creation of the National Agency for Quality Assessment and Evaluation (ANECA in its Spanish acronym). The latter is the Spanish national accreditation agency responsible for evaluating the university system. The roles of this system include the evaluation of study plans (VERIFICA program), the monitoring and implementation of official degrees (MONITOR and ACREDITA programs) and the implementation of doctoral programs (MENCI ON program). In addition, ANECA manages the evaluation of university teaching staff through the PEP, ACADEMIA and CNEAI programs. PEP and ACADEMIA are accreditation programs that evaluate university teaching staff for all positions in the Spanish university system. The PEP program evaluates assistant and contracted lecturers, while the ACADEMIA program evaluates tenured and tenure-track lecturers. The outcome of these evaluations will determine access to the university system (in the case of the assistant and contract categories) or career progression through the rest of the levels (in the case of tenured and tenure-track professors). These evaluations focus on teaching, research, management and transferable functions; professional experience outside the university environment; and training. However, the percentage weightings given to each of these components vary depending on the program. Thus, for the PEP, research work accounts for 60% of the total evaluation, in which priority is given to scientific production in impact journals. On the other hand, in the ACADEMIA program, although teaching and research work are given preference over the other components, both carry equal weighting. However, it is not necessary to obtain an excellent score on both components to pass the evaluation. Finally, the CNEAI is a program that evaluates the research activity of university teaching staff for six-year periods and in which priority is given to scientific production in impact journals. A favorable evaluation translates to salary incentives and preferential merit for passing the ACADEMIA program. 3. Method A quantitative methodology with a nonexperimental design was employed to respond to these objectives. This method was selected for two reasons: (1) to provide a first general descriptive overview of this field of study in the Spanish context and (2) to offer a quantitative overview that allows its extension to other international contexts (Mula-Falc on y Caballero, 2022). Specifically, a descriptive design was used for the first and second objectives, while a causal-comparative design was used for the last two. The aim was to obtain an overall view of the object of study and establish possible differences according to gender, professional category and academic discipline. 3.1 Participants For the present study, all university teachers from nine Andalusian public universities (Spain) were invited to participate by e-mail. Initially, 2,588 teachers responded to the questionnaire, of which 405 were excluded because the responses were incomplete or were identified as erroneous by the system. The final sample consisted of 2,183 teachers, representing 12.4% of the population, with a sampling error of 1.96 for a confidence interval of 95%. Table 1 summarizes the number of teachers surveyed from each of the universities. Concerning the distribution of the sample according to university, no statistically significant differences were found (p50.72) when applying the Mann–Whitney Utest. JARHE Of this sample, 53.7% identified as male, 45% as female and 1.2% identified as other or preferred not to answer. Concerning professional category, 29.4% were first-level professors (predoctoral, postdoctoral and temporary substitute professors), 19.4% were second-level professors (assistant and contract professors), 51% were third-level professors (tenured and tenure-track professors) and 0.1% of the sample did not indicate their professional category. Finally, regarding academic discipline, 17.9% worked in arts and humanities, 20% sciences, 15.5% health sciences, 30.6% social and legal sciences, 15.9% engineering and architecture and only 0.1% did not indicate the discipline to which they belonged. 3.2 Instruments The instrument employed was an unpublished questionnaire developed ad hoc for the national research project R þDþi funded by the Ministry of Science and Innovation of the Government of Spain, in which the present study is framed. For the elaboration of this questionnaire, an indepth review of the literature was carried out (ANONIMOUS). This review revealed the existence of other questionnaires focusing on teachers’general perceptions of their profession, on the training received and on organizational changes in the profession (Ylijoki et al., 2011; Teichler et al., 2013;Santos et al., 2015;Zenatta et al., 2017). However, no studies have been found with questionnaires on teachers’perceptions about the evaluation of their professional performance. Therefore, theneed arose to create an instrument to find out how teachers perceive and feel the evaluation systems of their professional performance (in Spain evaluations carried out by PEP, ACADEMIA and CNEAI programs) and how they affect their professional activity and their personal life. The questionnaire created was entitled Perceptions and Satisfaction of university teaching staff on the Development and Evaluation of their professional activity (PSPU in its Spanish acronym) and was subjected to both validity (expert judgment) and reliability (exploratory factor analysis) analyses. In relation to the validity analysis, the Kendall’s concordance coefficient allowed us to determine that the ten experts (both specialists in the subject matter under study and members of evaluation agencies with in-depth knowledge of the subject matter) rated the different dimensions of the instrument positively. On the Relevance scale, Kendall’s W value was 0.436, and on the Clarity scale: 0.284, both values allowed us to reject Ho for an X92 5196.34 (Relevance) and an X92 5125.30 (Clarity), with a degree of significance of <0.001. As a result, the final questionnaire consisted of 42 items distributed across 4 factors that aim to measure the perception and satisfaction of university teaching staff concerning the criteria for evaluating their professional activity. The reliability of the total number of items, Population Sample %Population %Sample %Total University of Almeria 940 97 5.3 4.4 10.3 University of Cadiz 1,739 240 9.8 11.0 13.8 University of Cordoba 1,442 173 8.2 7.9 12.0 University of Granada 3,706 608 21.0 27.9 16.4 University of Huelva 918 88 5.2 4.0 9.6 University of Jaen 980 149 5.5 6.8 15.2 University of Malaga 2,591 115 14.7 5.3 4.4 University of Pablo de Olavide 1,026 124 5.8 5.7 12.1 University of Seville 4,331 589 24.5 27.0 13.6 Total 17,673 2,183 100 12.4 Note(s): Data on the total teaching staff of each institution were provided by the General Secretariat for Universities, Research, and Technology of the Andalusian Regional Government Source(s): Authors’own creation Table 1. Population and sample distribution by university Academics’ perceptions measured by Cronbach’s alpha, is 0.937. On the other hand, exploratory factor analysis showed that the set of factors explained 45.68% of the variance. Only the responses to two dimensions were considered for this study. Dimension 1 analyzes teachers’perceptions of the assessment criteria, while Dimension 2 analyzes the influence of the criteria on teachers’professional and personal activity. These dimensions are composed of 9 and 11 items, respectively, which are answered using a Lickert-type scale with seven response options (1 5completely disagree/7 5strongly agree). The reliability indices obtained for each dimension using Cronbach’s alpha were 0.815 and 0.765. According to Tavakol and Dennick (2011) and Serbetar and Sedlar (2016), values above 0.70 are considered acceptable and confirm the internal consistency of this questionnaire. 3.3 Data analysis The results were analyzed using various statistical methods. First, a descriptive analysis was conducted to address the first two objectives by calculating means, standard deviations and frequencies. For the last two objectives, pairwise contrasts were used to determine differences. For this purpose, nonparametric tests were used after rejecting the null hypothesis (p< 0.001) using a Kolmogorov–Smirnov analysis, i.e., there was no normal distribution. The nonparametric tests used were the Mann–Whitney Utest for dichotomous variables (gender) and the Kruskal–Wallis test for nondichotomous variables (professional category and academic discipline). SPSS software was used for data analysis and calculations. 3.4 Ethical considerations This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the researchers’university. Participation was, therefore, voluntary and based on the principles of informed consent in which the information collected is restricted to use for research purposes only and in which anonymity and confidentiality are assured. 4. Results 4.1 Descriptive analysis 4.1.1 Dimension 1: teachers’perception of assessment criteria. Table 2 shows the scores representing the teacher’s perceptions of the assessment criteria. Within this, Items 16 (The assessment criteria for accreditation or six-year periods determine the way I direct my academic activity) and 25 (The priority given to research merits in the assessment processes harms my teaching activity) show the highest mean scores (4.38 and 4.30), with a median of 5. Item 30 (Research evaluation criteria encourage my production volume) is also notable with a mean of 4.06 and a median of 4. These items indicate that, according to the teachers’ perceptions, the criteria guide professional activity in a way that negatively impacts their teaching to prioritize academic outputs. On the other hand, the rest of the items obtained mean scores below 4. Of the items with lower values, Item 18 (The evaluation criteria have a positive impact on the improvement of my academic activity) stands out with a mean of 2.86 and a median of 3. In addition, the scores of Item 19 (The evaluation criteria for accreditation or six-year periods favor cooperation between colleagues) stand out, showing the lowest mean (2.57) and median of the whole dimension (1). These low scores indicate how teachers believe that the criteria negatively affect peer cooperation. 4.1.2 Dimension 2: influence of the criteria on university teaching staff’s professional and personal activity. Dimension 2 concerns the influence of the assessment criteria on professional and personal activity (Table 3). The summary item shows a mean of 5.04, JARHE 1 R (%) 2 R(%) 3 R (%) 4 R (%) 5 R (%) 6 R (%) 7 R (%) X (SD) Mdn 16. The evaluation criteria for accreditation and six-year periods determine the way I direct my academic activity 377 (17.3) 200 (9.2) 157 (7.2) 267 (12.2) 318 (14.6) 391 (17.9) 473 (21.7) 4.38 (2.159) 5 17. The evaluation criteria for accreditation and six-year periods adequately assess my professional quality 583 (26.7) 371 (17.0) 367 (16.8) 346 (15.8) 268 (12.3) 167 (7.7) 81 (3.7) 3.08 (1.779) 3 18. The evaluation criteria have a positive impact on the improvement of my academic activity 687 (31.5) 393 (18.0) 348 (15.9) 322 (14.8) 230 (10.5) 133 (6.1) 70 (3.2) 2.86 (1.747) 3 19. The assessment criteria for accreditation and six-year periods favor cooperation between colleagues 859 (39.3) 407 (18.6) 291 (13.3) 282 (12.9) 164 (7.5) 134 (6.1) 46 (2.1) 2.57 (1.703) 2 24. The teaching evaluation criteria favor my involvement in improving my students’learning 563 (25.8) 378 (17.3) 283 (13.0) 342 (15.7) 252 (11.5) 253 (11.6) 112 (5.1) 3.25 (1.904) 3 25. The priority given to research merits in the evaluation process has a negative impact on my teaching activity 417 (19.1) 225 (10.3) 150 (6.9) 260 (11.9) 253 (11.6) 378 (17.3) 500 (22.9) 4.30 (2.232) 5 29. The research evaluation criteria have a positive impact on the quality of my research activity 495 (22.7) 309 (14.2) 289 (13.2) 374 (17.1) 320 (14.7) 274 (12.6) 122 (5.6) 3.47 (1.900) 3 30. The research evaluation criteria incentivize my academic output 409 (18.7) 231 (10.6) 203 (9.3) 302 (13.8) 340 (15.6) 419 (19.2) 279 (12.8) 4.06 (2.068) 4 31. The research evaluation criteria contribute to the rigor of my research processes 553 (25.3) 319 (14.6) 284 (13.0) 296 (13.6) 296 (13.6) 271 (12.4) 164 (7.5) 3.43 (1.994) 3 Source(s): Authors’own creation Table 2. Scores per item on Dimension 1 Academics’ perceptions 1 R (%) 2 R(%) 3 R (%) 4 R (%) 5 R (%) 6 R (%) 7 R (%) X (SD) Mdn 21. I spend too much time on the bureaucraticadministrative aspects of my academic activity 115 (5.3) 111 (5.1) 137 (6.3) 208 (9.5) 237 (10.9) 442 (20.2) 933 (42.7) 5.47 (1.827) 6 26. My participation in teaching innovation projects, congresses, and courses on teaching is due to the need to gather merit 447 (20.5) 256 (11.7) 186 (8.5) 291 (13.3) 251 (11.5) 335 (15.3) 417 (19.1) 4.06 (2.201) 4 27. My participation in teaching innovation projects, congresses, and courses is motivated by an interest in improving my teaching 267 (12.2) 157 (7.2) 169 (7.7) 318 (14.6) 328 (15.0) 469 (21.5) 475 (21.8) 4.64 (2.005) 5 32. I pay attention to academic-professional platforms and networks (Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Academia.edu ...) so that my publications have visibility and are cited 377 (17.3) 292 (13.4) 259 (11.9) 344 (15.8) 306 (14.0) 298 (13.7) 307 (14.1) 3.93 (2.039) 4 35. My participation in research projects, conferences, and courses related to research is due to my interest in developing my research activity 128 (5.9) 90 (4.1) 85 (3.9) 218 (10.0) 339 (15.5) 597 (27.3) 726 (33.3) 5.40 (1.734) 6 36. Working to meet the evaluation criteria has a negative impact on my health (e.g. stress, anxiety) 204 (9.3) 154 (7.1) 115 (5.3) 206 (9.4) 297 (13.6) 421 (19.3) 786 (36.0) 5.13 (2.013) 6 37. I sacrifice aspects of my personal life (family, leisure, free time) to meet the demands of my academic activity 87 (4.0) 106 (4.9) 99 (4.5) 151 (6.9) 281 (12.9) 563 (25.8) 896 (41.0) 5.61 (1.688) 6 38. I feel guilty when I put aside my academic activity to devote time to myself or my family 324 (14.8) 195 (8.9) 135 (6.2) 219 (10.0) 307 (14.1) 438 (20.1) 565 (25.9) 4.63 (2.152) 5 39. Competitiveness in scientific production causes me personal discomfort and frustration 229 (10.5) 151 (6.9) 129 (5.9) 238 (10.9) 273 (12.5) 406 (18.6) 757 (34.7) 5.03 (2.054) 6 40. Dedication to family slows down or hinders my career advancement 361 (16.5) 271 (12.4) 186 (8.5) 298 (13.7) 272 (12.5) 332 (15.2) 463 (21.2) 4.24 (2.158) 4 41. The evaluation criteria for access and promotion at university make me consider changing job or searching for other professional opportunities 944 (43.2) 271 (12.4) 138 (6.3) 181 (8.3) 162 (7.4) 163 (7.5) 324 (14.8) 3.06 (2.298) 2 Source(s): Authors’own creation Table 3. Scores per item on Dimension 2 JARHE i.e., a medium–high level concerning the degree of agreement with the impact of the criteria on professional and personal activity. Moreover, it is worth noting that all items in this dimension show an average score above 3 (“agree”). Therefore, more than 70% of the teachers surveyed show a high degree of agreement regarding the influence of the assessment criteria on professional and personal activity. To determine the type of influence, we highlight the items with the highest and lowest mean. Concerning the items with the highest scores in this dimension, two groups emerged. One group consisted of Items 21 (I spend too much time on the bureaucratic-administrative aspects inherent to my academic activity) and 35 (My participation in research projects, congresses, and courses related to research is due to my interest in developing my research activity) with a mean of 5.47 and 5.40. These items indicate the most significant workrelated consequences of the evaluation criteria. Thus, Item 21 refers to the bureaucratic overload of the profession, which is accentuated in the evaluation processes. And Item 35 indicates how, among the items related to participation in different projects, congresses and courses (Items 26, 27 and 35), those related to research are the most highly valued by the participants due to their consequences in the development and improvement of their research activity. These results may be due to the high weight given to research in the evaluation processes, the performance in which determines the likelihood of obtaining a high score. On the other hand, a second group emerged with high scores on items associated with social and health consequences. In this group, we highlight Items 36 (Working to meet the evaluation criteria affects my health negatively: (stress, anxiety, ...)), 39 (Competitiveness in terms of scientific production causes me personal discomfort or frustration), and 37 (I sacrifice aspects of my personal life –(family, leisure, free time) –to meet the demands of my academic activity) with a median of 5 and averages of 5.13, 5.03 and 5.61, respectively. However, of these three items, Item 37 is notable. On this item, more than 40% of the sample indicates a high degree of agreement with the social and family sacrifices necessary to meet the demands of the current university system. Finally, concerning the items with the lowest scores, we can highlight Items 32 (I pay attention to academic-professional platforms and networks (Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Academia.edu ...) so that (my publications have visibility and are cited) and 41 (The evaluation criteria for access and promotion at university make me consider changing job or searching for other professional opportunities) with an average of 3.93 and 3.06. Item 41 is particularly noteworthy, with more than 40% of the sample indicating a low agreement concerning a change of profession. In other words, according to our sample, the evaluation criteria do not improve professional networks and platforms for increasing the dissemination of scientific work or the search for other career options outside academia. 4.2 Significant differences Table 4 shows the degree of statistical significance found in the dimensions analyzed for the gender, professional category and academic discipline variables. Sex Professional category Scientific discipline D1 0.575 0.05* <0.001* D2 0.00* 0.000* <0.001* Note(s): The significance level is 0.05 *Reject the null hypothesis Source(s): Author’s own creation Table 4. Degree of statistical significance according to variable and dimension Academics’ perceptions El-Far, M., Sabella, A. and Vershinina, N. (2020), “‘Stuck in the middle of what?’: the pursuit of academic careers by mothers and non-mothers in higher education institutions in occupied Palestine”,Higher Education, Vol. 81, pp. 685-705, doi: 10.1007/s10734-020-00568-5. Fernandez-Cano, A. (2021), “Letter to the Editor: publish, publish ...cursed!”,Scientometrics, Vol. 126, pp. 3673-3682, doi: 10.1007/s11192-020-03833-7. Gunn, A. (2018), “The UK teaching excellence framework (TEF): the development of a new transparency tool”, in Curaj, A., Deca, L. and Pricopie, R. (Eds), European Higher Education Area: the Impact of Past and Future Policies, Springer, pp. 505-526. Harris, C., Myers, B. and Ravenswood, K. (2019), “Academic careers and parenting: identity, performance and surveillance”,Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 708-718, doi: 10. 1080/03075079.2017.1396584. Harvey, L. (2006), “Impact of quality assurance: overview of a discussion between representatives of external quality assurance agencies”,Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 287-290. Harvey, L. (2020), “Research fraud: a long-term problem exacerbated by the clamour for research grants”, Quality in Higher Education,Vol.26No.3,pp.243-261,doi:10.1080/13538322.2020.1820126. Hazelkorn, E. (2018), “The accountability and transparency agenda: emerging issues in the global era”, in Curaj, A., Deca, L. and Pricopie, R. (Eds), European Higher Education Area: the Impact of Past and Future Policies, Springer, pp. 423-440. Hortal, H. and Tang, L. (2023), “Male and female academics’gendered perceptions of academic work and career progression in China”,Higher Education Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 515-536, doi: 10. 1111/hequ.12419. Huang, Y., Pang, S. and Yu, S. (2016), “Academic identities and university faculty responses to new managerialist reforms: experiences from China”,Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 154-172, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2016.1157860. Huisman, J. (2018), “Accountability in higher education”, in Nuno, P. and Shin, J. (Eds), Encyclopedia of International Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Springer, London, pp. 1-5. Huisman, J., Boer, H., Dill, D. and Souto-Otero, M. (2015), The Palgrave International Handbook of Higher Education Policy and Governance, Palgrave. Jim enez, M. (2019), “Identidad acad emica: una franquicia en construcci on”,Educar, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 543-560, doi: 10.5565/rev/educar.960. Laiho, A., Jauhiainen, A. and Jauhiainen, A. (2020), “Being a teacher in a managerial university: academic teacher identity”,Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 249-266, doi: 10. 1080/13562517.2020.1716711. Lipton, B. (2020), Academic World in Neoliberal Times, Palgrave McMillan, Sydney. Ma, L. and Ladisch, M. (2019), “Evaluation complacency or evaluation inertia? A study of evaluative metrics and research practices in Irish universities”,Research Evaluation, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 209-217, doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvz008. Macheridis, N. and Paulsson, N. (2021), “Tracing accountability in higher education”,Research in Education, Vol. 110 No. 1, pp. 78-97, doi: 10.1177/0034523721993143. Mula-Falcon, J. and Caballero, K. (2022), “Neoliberalism and its impact on academics: a qualitative review”,Research in Post-Compulsory Education, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 373-390, doi: 10.1080/ 13596748.2022.2076053. Pattaro, A., Moura, P. and Kruijf, A. (2022), “Transparency and accountability in higher education as a response to external stakeholders and rules: a comparison between ThreeCountry-CaseStudies”, in Caperchione, E. and Bianchi, C. (Eds), Governance and Performance Management in Public Universities, Springer, pp. 15-49. San Fabi an, J. (2020), “El reconocimiento de la actividad investigadora universitaria como mecanismo de regulaci on del mercado acad emico”,Revista de Educaci on de la Universidad de M alaga, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 23-24, M argenes, doi: 10.24310/mgnmar.v1i1.7208. JARHE Santos, A., Mu~ noz-Rodr ıguez, D. and Poveda, M. (2015), “‘En cuerpo y alma’: insatisfacci on y precariedad en las condiciones de trabajo del profesorado universitario”,Arxius, Vol. 32, pp. 13-14. Saura, G. and Bol ıvar, A. (2019), “Sujeto acad emico neoliberal: cuantificado, digitalizado y bibliometrificado”,REICE. Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educaci on, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 9-26, doi: 10.15366/reice2019.17.4.001. Schindler, L., Puls-Elvidge, D., Welzant, H. and Crawford, L. (2015), “Definitions of quality in higher education: a synthesis of the literature”,Higher Learning Research Communications, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 3-13, doi: 10.18870/hlrc.v5i3.244. Serbetar, I. and Sedlar, I. (2016), “Assessing reliability of a multi-dimensional scale by coefficient alpha”,Revija Za Elementarno Izobrazevanje, Vol. 9 Nos 1/2, p. 189. Stensaker, B. (2018), “External quality assurance in higher education”, in Shin, J.C. and Teixeira, P. (Eds), Encyclopedia of International Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Springer, doi: 10. 1007/978-94-017-9553-1_523-1. Stensaker, B. and Maassen, P. (2015), “A conceptualization of available trust-building mechanisms for international quality assurance of higher education”,Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 30-40. Tasopoulou, K. and Tsiotras, G. (2017), “Benchmarking towards excellence in higher education”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 617-634, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-032016-0036. Tavakol, M. and Dennick, R. (2011), “Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha”,International Journal of Medical Education, Vol. 2, p. 53. Teichler, U., Arimoto, A. and Cummings, W. (2013), The Changing Academic Profession: Major Findings of a Comparative Survey, Springer, Kassel. Tomicic, A. (2019), “American dream, Humboldtian nightmare: reflections on the remodelled values of a neoliberalized academia”,Policy Futures in Education, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 1057-1077, doi: 10. 1177/1478210319834825. T€ ul€ ubass, T. and G€ okt€ urk, S. (2020), “Neoliberal governmentality and performativity culture in higher education: reflections on academic identity”,Research in Educational Administration and Leadership, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 198-232, doi: 10.30828/real/2020.1.6. Ursin, J., V€ ah€ asantanen, K., McAlpine, L. and H€ okk€ a, P. (2020), “Emotionally loaded identity and agency in Finnish academic work”,Journal of Further and Higher Education, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 311-325, doi: 10.1080/0309877X.2018.1541971. Ylijoki, O., Lyytinen, A. and Marttila, L. (2011), “Different research markets: a disciplinary perspective”,Higher Education, Vol. 62, pp. 721-740, doi: 10.1007/s10734-011-9414-2. Zenatta, E., Ponce, T., Garc ıa, L., S anchez, C. and Gama, J. (2017), “Dise~ no del cuestionario: estrategias identitarias de acad emicos universitarios ante las reformas educativas”,Revista de Psicolog ıa, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 703-724, doi: 10.18800/psico.201702.011. Corresponding author Javier Mula-Falc on can be contacted at: [email protected] For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected] Academics’ perceptions