academics on non-standard contracts in uk universities: portfolio work, choice and compulsion

Academics on Non-StandardContracts in UKUniversities: Portfolio Work,Choice and CompulsionDonna Brown and Michael Gold, University of London

Abstract

This paper analyses the profile and motivation of over 1,300 academicsemployed on part-time, fixed term or temporary contracts at 10 post-1992 UKuniversities, whom it categorises as ‘non-standard academics’. Based on aquestionnaire survey, it investigates their demographic background, includingage, gender and ethnic background, as well as the factors behind acceptance oftheir current employment status. It reveals that six out of ten chose their statusand correspond in some ways to the profile of ‘portfolio worker’ (high level ofqualifications, multiple job holding and sense of independence). This tends tocorrect the perception of them as mainly ‘casual’.However, commitment to theircurrent employment status is less clear, with over one-third stating that theywould accept a permanent job on their current hours.There are, therefore, signsof adaptation to certain forms of non-standard status (hours) but not to others(impermanence). Such uncertainty illustrates the hazy boundaries betweencasual and portfolio status.

Background

The fragmentation of labour markets over recent years has led to wide-spread interest in forms of ‘non-standard’ employment, including part-time, fixed-term, temporary or agency work and self-employment. Thispaper examines the use of non-standard contracts for academic staff at across section of 10 ‘new’ or post-1992 universities across England andScotland, focusing on lecturers on temporary and fixed-term contracts(sometimes referred to as non-established teachers) as well as permanentstaff on fractional appointments. These three categories together arereferred to hereafter as ‘non-standard academics’ (NSAs). The Higher

Higher Education Quarterly, 0951–5224Volume 61, No. 4, October 2007, pp 439–460

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4, 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148,USA.

Education Statistics Agency (HESA) calculates that of the 242,450academic staff working at UK institutions of higher education in 2004–2005, there were 81,795 (33.7 per cent) classed as ‘atypical’, meaning‘those whose working arrangements are not permanent, involve complexemployment relationships and/or involve work away from the supervisionof the normal work provider’ (HESA, 2006). According to most esti-mates, non-established staff (captured by the term NSAs) teach up to athird of undergraduate degrees (Blackwell, 2003).This paper explores avariety of issues raised by this sample, including their terms and condi-tions, the degree of choice involved in becoming an NSA, and theirassessments of the advantages and disadvantages of this kind of contrac-tual status.

The survey, covering 10 universities, was entitled ‘Non-StandardContracts in UK Universities: Choice and Compulsion in the Creationof Portfolio Working’, and was funded by the Nuffield Foundation. InApril and May 2004, questionnaires were sent to 5,892 academics on avariety of non-standard contracts, who had been identified for the surveyby the participating universities. These universities organised the dis-patch of the questionnaires to the full sample of their NSAs. At no timewere the names and addresses ever disclosed by the respective employinguniversities. Eventually, 1,331 questionnaires were returned, a responserate of 22.6 per cent overall. In return for their support in dispatching thequestionnaires, each university received a report profiling their ownNSAs and comparing them to those in the other nine universities. Theuniversities were widely dispersed across England and Scotland.

Aims and objectives

This research builds on earlier studies (Fraser and Gold, 2001; Gold andFraser, 2002; Brown and Gold, 2004) and contributes to the literatureon the ‘self-employed without employees’. The position of this labourmarket group is examined to explore employment motivations. Thepaper explores the extent to which this group of workers maintainsseveral jobs at the same time. It hypothesises that these categories ofworkers, despite the differences in their employment status, generallyearn their living through combining a variety of types of employment,such as teaching, consultancy and writing, and therefore can be seen as‘portfolio workers’ (Handy, 1990, 1994). Until now, studies of NSAshave tended to focus on non-established staff as casualised workers onfixed-term contracts and on their sense of insecurity (Husbands, 1998a;Bryson and Barnes, 2000) or else on developing critical approaches to

440 Higher Education Quarterly

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

issues involved in managing a ‘flexible’ academic workforce (Barnes andO’Hara, 1999; Cloonan, 2004). This study covers a broader group: allthose on temporary and fixed-term, or non-permanent, contracts andpermanent part-time staff. It makes a particular contribution as there isvery little work on NSAs’ own perceptions of their working conditions(National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education(NATFHE), 2001). Therefore, this project builds on such studies bothempirically and theoretically, not least by investigating the degree ofchoice involved in accepting such contracts.

This survey adds to the growing literature that examines the condi-tions of ‘portfolio workers’, such as copy editors (Stanworth andStanworth, 1997), management consultants (Mallon, 1998) and trans-lators (Fraser and Gold, 2001). However, the significance of this work isunderpinned by two further factors.The first is that there is a ‘relativelysparse literature on academic industrial relations’ (Wilson, 1991, p. 250)– a statement that remains valid today – and the second is the increasingimportance of non-established teachers in delivering higher education inthe UK (Cutler, James and Waine, 1997; Bryson and Barnes, 2000).Therefore, this paper also makes a contribution to a neglected corner ofindustrial relations research in the UK, with particular reference to adiverse group of ‘NSAs’ who play a significant role within it.

The first objective was to establish a demographic profile of theworkers concerned, including gender, ethnic background, age, maritalstatus and qualifications. Very little is known about these workers andeven national estimates of their numbers have varied dramatically(Husbands, 1998b; Husbands and Davies, 2000). Indeed, one observerhas described hourly paid teachers (one of the categories of the termNSA) as ‘the most neglected or “invisible” group’ in terms of academicanalysis (Bryson, 2004, p. 203). For these reasons, the descriptive aspectof these findings should not be underestimated. Since the survey alsoasked about training needs and other human resource-related matters,university policy makers are also likely to find the results of practicalvalue when drawing up their human resource strategies. Like contractresearchers, NSAs share certain features in common, such as employ-ment conditions and status, but there are also wide divergences in theirambitions and perceptions of their role (Allen-Collinson, 2000).

Second, the survey investigates aspects of control over conditions suchas hours worked, timetabling, training and pay, and the extent to whichrespondents have been able to improve these areas. The paper discussesthe perceived advantages and disadvantages of ‘non-standard’ employ-ment as well as individual and household incomes.

Academics on Non-Standard Contracts in UK Universities 441


Finally, the survey also has more theoretical objectives: it examinesreasons for accepting NSA status. This question of compulsion versuschoice is critical in determining the kind of satisfaction that portfolioworkers are likely to derive from their various assignments. Analysis ofsuch push/pull factors helps to refine understanding of the status oftemporary or permanent part-time work in the labour market, a matterthat remains controversial because of its association with cost-cutting(Bradley et al., 2000).

The survey1

With respect to their employment as ‘portfolio workers’, this study ofNSAs reveals that 47 per cent had one additional paid job, 11 per centhad two and 8 per cent had three or more additional jobs. NSAs mayhave chosen portfolio work to meet other goals, such as work/lifebalance, or to engage in voluntary activities. However, many peoplehave also found themselves compelled to become portfolio workersthrough external circumstance, such as redundancy or lack of otheropportunities. For this reason, the paper also explored whether or not thepeople in this survey would prefer to become full-time permanentemployees given the opportunity. Across the sample there was someinterest in a full-time permanent job (30 per cent), with 27 per centanswering ‘maybe’.This leaves a sizeable proportion rejecting the idea ofa permanent full-time post (43 per cent). Respondents were asked if theywould like a permanent position ‘on your current hours’, which in theoverwhelming majority of cases meant part-time. This was significantlymore popular than a full-time job: well over one-third would take sucha position (37 per cent), and a further quarter would consider doing so(25 per cent). The proportion rejecting such a change outright wasmuch smaller at 27 per cent.

Personal details

Of the responses, 537 (41 per cent) were returned by staff on tempo-rary contracts and 472 (36 per cent) by staff on fixed-term contracts,with the remaining 297 (23 per cent) by fractional appointees on per-manent contracts (research students were excluded from the sample).This shows a far greater proportion of insecure rather than part-timetenured staff, although there was wide variation in the usage of differ-ent types of contract across the 10 universities. Where totals for thesample do not add up to 1,331 in the subsequent analysis, this



indicates that respondents answered ‘not applicable’ or failed to answera particular question.

In general, female respondents (62 per cent) far outweighed theirmale colleagues (38 per cent), a pattern replicated at each university.Thesample was almost entirely white (94 per cent). There was, however,some evidence of diversity, with the largest other ethnic groups beingSouth Asian (2 per cent), Mixed (1 per cent) and Chinese (0.5 per cent).

Respondents are concentrated in the 35–44 (29 per cent) and 45–54-year-age bands (29 per cent).These 10 universities have a small propor-tion of under 35-year-olds (16 per cent) compared to prime-age workers.There is much greater employment of the 60–64-year-olds (9 per cent)than those aged 65 plus years (4 per cent).

Table 1 shows the overwhelming majority of respondents are marriedor living with a partner (76 per cent). Table 1 also gives the total numberof respondents living with a working partner, which may influence thechoices made by employees. We pursue this point later in the text.

The prevalence of dependents may influence the work-related choicesof the participating staff.The questionnaire had asked how many depen-dents lived in the household: dependents were disaggregated into thoseof school age or below and adults. Across all the universities well overhalf (60 per cent) of the sample had no child dependents at all and, of theremainder, the majority had one (17 per cent) or two (18 per cent). Onlyaround 6 per cent had three or more children. Additionally, adult depen-dents were relatively uncommon: 11 per cent had one or more, with just3 per cent having two or more to care for.

A PhD as highest qualification (14 per cent) is less common than amaster’s degree (40 per cent). A significant proportion (25 per cent) isengaging in academic work with a bachelor’s degree as their highestqualification. A sizeable group have professional qualifications of varioustypes (16 per cent), and 82 (6 per cent) have other types of accreditation.

TABLE 1Marital status

Marital status Number %

Married/co-habitating 997 75.5Single 207 15.5Separated/divorced 96 7.5Widowed 17 1.5

Working partner 812 61.0



Well over half of the respondents (60 per cent) did not belong to atrade union. However, amongst union members, NATFHE was the bestrepresented, covering 16 per cent of all the respondents, outweighing theAssociation of University Teachers (AUT) with just 4 per cent (theseunions merged in June 2006, after the survey was completed,to form the University and College Union). This breakdown reflectsthe sample composition, as new universities were dominated byNATFHE rather than the AUT. The second largest trade union mem-bership was of the Royal College of Nursing (5 per cent). Union mem-bership was considerably higher amongst permanent part-time staff thanthose on temporary or fixed-term contracts.

Only 65 respondents (5 per cent) stated that they had long-standinghealth problems or disabilities that limited what they could do at workand at home. These workers were marginally more likely to be perma-nent part-time workers.

The ‘typical’ NSA who emerges from this profile is, then, a white,middle-aged woman in good health with a master’s degree who has atleast one other paid position. She has a working partner but no depen-dents living at home.

Current employment

Respondents generally classed themselves as ‘visiting lecturer/lecturer’(73 per cent), with those who were ‘senior or principal lecturers’ (19 percent) forming the second largest category. Although professorial-levelstaff (1.5 per cent) came in all contractual categories, the majority ofsenior or principal lecturers were permanent part-time workers. Ninetyrespondents (8 per cent) had ‘other’ relatively unusual titles, indicatingthat the nomenclature of NSAs varies widely. These included ‘clinicalsupervisor’, ‘demonstrator’, ‘practice educator’ and ‘sessional learningsupport tutor’.

Length of service was varied. Fewer than 500 respondents (36 percent) had started work since 2003, compared with 73 per cent who hadbeen taken on since 2000. The earliest a respondent had joined his/hercurrent institution was 1958, although only a handful had arrived priorto 1990. Continuity is more obvious if the focus is contract renewals:63 per cent declared that their contract had been renewed, while some41 per cent of respondents added that they had previously beenemployed at their main institution on a different form of contract.

Around one-third of respondents (35 per cent) stated that they had noother additional paid employment. Of those with multiple remunerated



jobs, one additional post was by far the likeliest response (47 per cent),with two additional jobs held by a further 11 per cent. Only 101 respon-dents (8 per cent) had three or more additional posts, a balancingact which fits most closely the stereotype of the portfolio worker. Thelikelihood that they juggled multiple posts varied widely betweenuniversities. Overall, there is something of a gender split amongst respon-dents when it comes to multiple job holding: women are slightly morelikely to hold no other paid jobs, while men seem more likely to hold twoor more additional paid posts. Multiple job holding by respondents wasconcentrated amongst those aged 45–54: one reason may be that theyhave less onerous family ties than respondents of other ages.Those agedover 60 were only a little less likely to be holding down more than onepost, but those aged over 65 were much less likely to have more than onepaid job, presumably as they eased down towards retirement.

Other employment covered a diverse range of posts, including manyconsultants. A significant number of respondents were health profession-als of some description, but it was most common to find that the secondjob was also in education.

When the past employment lives of respondents was examined, wellover half (60 per cent) stated that their contractual status in their previousjob was ‘permanent’, with relatively only small numbers claiming to havebeen on ‘fixed-term’ (13 per cent) or ‘temporary’ contracts (10 per cent).However, 16 per cent had previously been ‘freelance’.This suggests thata little less than 40 per cent of respondents were used to a relativelyinsecure working life. One-third of respondents had held an academicpost previously (33 per cent), with administration (11 per cent) andsome form of health care (11 per cent) as the next most frequentanswers. Again there was huge diversity across all the participants. Withrespect to the number of hours actually worked, given the breadth of thisrange, it is better to take the monthly average: 137 per month, or amedian value of 148 hours.

The desire for change

Reasons for leaving the previous position vary significantly. The ques-tionnaire asks respondents which of a list of causes led them to leavetheir last post. They had the option to offer an additional reason, andthese were examined and grouped together to provide additionalcategories.

A desire for change was by far the dominant single factor for leavingthe last job (Figure 1). Looking at the push factors (such as the end



of a contract, retirement and redundancy), retirement and redundancyplayed minor roles compared with coming to the end of one’s contract.The issue of ‘push/pull’ factors is returned to below in more detail.Family reasons motivated the behaviour of a sizeable number ofrespondents, a response more common to female respondents thanmen. More money was a minor factor, affecting just 4 per cent overalland there was a fairly even proportion of men and women citing thisinfluence.

Push/pull factors involved in becoming an NSA

A principal objective of this research was to analyse the motivations ofNSAs, that is, what induced them to accept this type of contract in thefirst place.There is a growing literature on the push/pull factors involved(Stanworth and Stanworth, 1997; Cohen and Mallon, 1999; Barrett andDoiron, 2001). Broadly, pull factors involve choice, while push factorsinvolve compulsion. Some writers tend to emphasise the pull factors.Handy, for example, has argued that people with transferable, profes-sional skills will increasingly opt to work freelance rather than to workfor organisations (Handy, 1990, 1994). Other writers tend to emphasisethe push factors involving compulsion. Bradley et al. (2000, p. 69),for example, argue that certain structural barriers prevent the pursuitof portfolio careers, which are accordingly restricted to the ‘relativelypowerful and wealthy’.

However, even this analysis may overstate the choices available. Evenif the focus is on NSAs who are, as noted above, highly qualified andexperienced as a sample, the issue remains whether they have principallychosen to work in this way or whether they have been compelled to do soby other factors. In the questionnaire, respondents were invited to giveone reason for leaving their previous position. While a few added sec-

13%

12%

27%10%3%

4%

6%

25%end of contract

retired

wanted change

family reasons

stress/health

more money

redundant

other

13%

12%

27%

10%

3%

4%

6%

25%

Figure 1 Reason for leaving last job



ondary factors, the majority identified just one factor, which is used asthe basis for the following analysis (Table 2).

The options added under the ‘other’ category proved less easy tocategorise as push or pull factors. Condensed, this suggests that pullfactors (69 per cent) were more than twice as likely as push factors(31 per cent). The predominant feeling is that respondents havechosen this type of employment relationship, but male respondentswere much more likely than women to feel that they had been com-pelled to accept their current contractual arrangements: 54 per centagainst 30 per cent.

How do the constructed push–pull factors relate to interest in a morepermanent type of contract? The responses of those categorised ashaving been ‘pushed’ are not significantly different from those given byrespondents who had chosen their current arrangements. Of those whowere ‘pushed’ into taking their current job, there was considerable inter-est in permanent posts on either current or full-time hours, especially ifthe ‘maybes’ are considered (Table 3). A full-time permanent post was,however, rejected emphatically by more than 40 per cent. Overall, suchresponses suggest that these respondents had converted to their new-found status and were able to see advantages.This group was, strikingly,no more eager to return to permanent employment than those ‘pulled’

TABLE 2Reasons for leaving the last position: push or pull

Reason for leaving Number %

Push factorsEnd of contract 156 13.5Redundant 76 6.5Retired 137 11.5Organisation moved 3 0Organisation changed 8 0.5

Pull factorsWanted change 323 27.5More money 42 3.5Family reasons 114 9.5Stress/health 37 3Partner moved 32 2.5Immigration/emigration 11 1Started own business 6 0.5Increased security 6 0.5

Other 196 16.5



towards their current contract. Such a finding suggests that those withinitially positive views of NSA life may have been disappointed. Ofthose ‘pulled’ there was more interest in a permanent job on currenthours than in a permanent full-time post, presumably as this wouldenable some continued combination of activities: 39 per cent against32 per cent. However, the margin blurs if those answering ‘maybe’ areincluded. Again there was a strong aversion to a permanent full-timepost (41 per cent).

Reasons for accepting current position

To help cement an understanding of choice and compulsion, respon-dents were asked to react to a series of statements that might indicatewhy they had accepted their current position. They were asked to agreeor disagree, on a scale of one to six, where one was ‘strong disagreement’and six was ‘strong agreement’. Responses are compared by gender, assignificant differences were found for the pilot study when the data weredisaggregated in this way (Table 4).

Respondents across the sample disagree to some extent with thestatements ‘I earn more money with this type of contract’ and ‘Thecontract enables me to avoid administrative duties’. They show someagreement with the statements ‘I can engage in a variety of occupations’and ‘No other type of contract was available’. Such responses indicatethat most NSAs have mixed feelings about their current position.

TABLE 3Interest in a different type of contract for respondents

Yes (%) Maybe (%) No (%)

Interested in a permanent job oncurrent hours

36.5 25 26.5

Interested in a full-time permanent job 30 26.5 42.5Those pushed on to this contract*

(compulsion)39%

Interested in a permanent job oncurrent hours

37 26 28

Interested in a full-time permanent job 32.5 23 43Those pulled on to this contract* (choice) 61%Interested in a permanent job on

current hours39 23 20

Interested in a full-time permanent job 32 26 41

* Totals may not add up due to rounding, and where the answer given is ‘not applicable’.



Overall, respondents showed more ambivalence towards the statements‘I always wanted this type of contract’ and ‘I can combine this job withmy family responsibilities’.

However, when disaggregating by gender, three statements generatestatistically significant different responses. One of the starkest differ-ences by gender comes from answers to ‘I can combine this job withmy family responsibilities’. As noted above, 40 per cent had school-aged children, and a further 11 per cent had adult dependents. Womenare more likely to use their NSA status to satisfy their domestic com-mitments, with a mean response to the statement of 4 against 3.6 formen.

Answers to the comment ‘I can engage in a variety of occupations’ alsovary along gender lines, this statement having been chosen to reflectcommitment to the portfolio-working ideal. Men show significantlygreater agreement with this, which is surprising given the limited pre-ponderance of men holding multiple posts.

The final significant difference along gender lines comes in answer tothe statement ‘This contract enables me to avoid administrative duties’.Overall the answers were negative, suggesting that NSA positions do notoffer an escape route from bureaucracy but the aggregate score forwomen is much lower: 2.3 against 2.7.

TABLE 4Reasons for taking this position

Statements Meanresponse

Mean maleresponse

Mean femaleresponse

I always wanted this type of contract 3 3 3I earn more money with this type of

contract2.4 2.3 2.4

This contract enables me to avoidadministrative duties

2.5 2.7 2.3***

No other type of contract wasavailable

4.2 4.3 4.2

I can engage in a variety ofoccupations

4.1 4.3 4***

I can combine this job with my familyresponsibilities

3.8 3.6 4***

Note: Agreement ranged on a scale of 1–6, where 1 represents strong disagreement and 6represents strong agreement. Therefore, mean responses of less than 3 indicate generaldisagreement and of more than 4 general agreement. Asterisks are used to indicate astatistically significant response by gender, with more stars representing a starker differencein attitude by gender. For full explanation, see Table 7.



Aspects of job control

Survey respondents were asked to rank the degree of control they hadover hours worked, timetabling, training, pay and the length of theircontract.They were given a scale of one to three, where one representedno control, two was some control and three indicated a good deal ofcontrol.

The issue over which respondents felt they have the least control ispay: 86 per cent of the respondents have none and 11 per cent have somecontrol (Table 5). This is unsurprising given the continuing role ofunionised national pay negotiations over a common pay framework.Thelength of the employment contract is also an area over which respon-dents felt relatively powerless: 70 per cent feel that they have no control,and 17 per cent feel that they have a limited amount of control. Thegreatest control is felt to be wielded over hours worked: only 29 per centof respondents claim to have no control and almost the same proportion(28 per cent) state they have a lot of control. Similarly, around a quarterclaim to control the timetabling of their commitments, with just 29 percent unable to affect this. It would be surprising if NSAs could not exertinfluence over these two most basic aspects of employment, so the figuresfor control over hours and timetabling are lower than might have beenexpected.

An earlier study (Brown and Gold, 2004) had suggested that womenexerted, or perceived, a greater degree of control over aspects of workthan men. Table 6 uses dummy variables to investigate statistical varia-tion in perceived job control by gender. The analysis of categoricalvariables can be simplified by conflating responses into a dummyvariable. In this case, degrees of control over aspects of working condi-tions are collapsed into a new variable taking the value one for a positive

TABLE 5Aspects of job control

Area of control None Some A lot

Number % Number % Number %Hours worked 373 28.5 568 43 370 28Timetabling 379 29 607 46 317 24Training 511 39.5 539 42 218 17Pay 1,127 85.5 143 11 39 3Length of contract 908 69.5 221 17 143 11

Note: All percentages given to one decimal place – totals may not add up due to rounding.



response (some control) and zero for a negative response (no control).Therefore, the closer the aggregate dummy’s value to one, the greater isthe overall sense of power to affect working conditions. The greatestdegree of job control was felt over hours of work (Table 5). So lookingfirst at control over hours worked and timetabling, these dummies reflectsignificant levels of influence. However, unlike the results of the earlierstudy, there is little significant variation here by gender.

As mentioned previously, pay is the issue over which all of the respon-dents felt they had the least control, reflecting the (relative) transparencyof pay settlements. There is a 0.01 advantage in female respondents’perceived control over pay, compared to their male peers, but this is toosmall to be significant.

Further, respondents felt unable to affect the length of their contract(Table 5). A dummy variable reflects this with a low value for both menand women: 0.28 against 0.29. Responses on the question of control overthe length of contract vary only marginally by gender across the 10institutions: women’s responses generated a slightly higher mean score,which is not statistically significant.

Such a highly skilled profession requires high standards of perfor-mance, a demand reinforced by both the Quality Assurance Agency andthe Research Assessment Exercise. On the issue of control over access totraining, women exert (or think they exert) more influence than malerespondents: the mean scores were 0.62 and 0.57, respectively (Table 6).This gender variation, with females claiming greater control, requiresfurther research.

Further analysis shows that job control is more prevalent as NSAs riseup the hierarchy. Professors, senior lecturers and senior health profes-sionals are more likely to exert a lot or a little control over all workingconditions, other than pay, than respondents working as more junior

TABLE 6Differences in aspects of job control by gender

Area of control Mean for men Mean for women

Hours worked 0.71 0.72Timetabling 0.71 0.71Training 0.57 0.62*Pay 0.13 0.14Length of contract 0.28 0.29

Note: Answers to these questions are conflated into dummies, with 1 indicating a degree ofcontrol and 0 indicating no control. For explanation of asterisk, see Table 7.



health professionals, lecturers, technicians or teaching assistants. On theissue of pay, managers, professors and senior health professionals aremore likely to claim a limited degree of influence than others in thehierarchy. Similarly, control over issues other than pay and the length ofcontract rises with age, though this may be capturing some hierarchyeffects.

Improvements

Respondents were asked if they had been able to improve upon aspectsof their contract, how many aspects, and which ones. Almost half ofthe sample (46 per cent) stated that they had been unable, or had notneeded, to improve upon any aspect of their employment at theircurrent institution. Five respondents claimed they had been able toimprove upon all five of the given aspects of their contract: pay, lengthof contract, hours, timetabling and training. Some 5 per cent had wonimprovements in three areas, and just 1 per cent on four issues. Thecommonest area of improvement, in line with the previous analysis,was timetabling.

The manner of putting this change into effect was also pursued(Figure 2). Many reasons were complex and unique, and these form thebulk of the ‘other’ category in subsequent analysis, so the discussion willconcentrate on the most commonly used. The most frequently citedsingle method was by reducing or condensing one’s working hours, tominimise the days across which teaching was spread. While 17 per centof respondents who improved their contract cited this method, a further16 per cent had improved upon their position using the inverse tactic:increasing their hours. A strategy of flexibility offers obvious benefits to

17%

16%

6%12%4%

3%

4%

38%

cut/condensed hoursincreased hourstraining/developmentnegotiated withmanagers/personnelgood performance

flexibilitymade permanentother

17%16%

6%

12%4%

3%4%

38%

Figure 2 How respondents improved upon contractual conditions



the employer, and may fit with NSAs’ other commitments; accordingly,3 per cent asserted that this had won them better conditions. A smallproportion had seen improvements arise when they had been convertedto permanent contracts (4 per cent). Training and development wereanother popular route to achieve improvement, cited by 6 per cent.Relying on good performance seems to be a route in some way related totraining and development and it was cited by a further 4 per cent of thesample.

Some respondents focused on the action they took to improve theirpay and conditions, while others talked more about the processes theyhad used: for example, 12 per cent had negotiated their improvements.Significantly, a greater proportion of women cited this approach: 57 percent of negotiators were female. Women also favoured the training anddevelopment strategy.

Advantages and disadvantages of NSA status

Following the analysis of motives for taking NSA status in the first place,the survey investigated the advantages and disadvantages of employmenton this type of contract once it had been accepted. Respondents wereasked to agree or disagree with a series of statements relating to theirthoughts on their working lives (on a scale of one to six, where one wasstrong disagreement and six was strong agreement).Two and three couldbe characterised as ‘somewhat’ and ‘slight’ disagreement, respectively,and four and five ‘slight’ and ‘somewhat’ agreement, respectively. Meananswers, falling between three and four, are treated as neutral responses.This provides a particularly interesting picture if comparisons are madeby gender (Table 7).

Female respondents agreed more forcefully than their male peerswith the statement that it was advantageous to be able to work fromhome, giving a mean answer of 4.3, compared to 4 for the men. Notunexpectedly, there is a strong correlation between interest in workingfrom home and the travel to work time. Respondents are also morelikely to rate this aspect of their working lives highly if they have childor adult dependents.

Reactions to the statement ‘Receiving an irregular or uncertainincome is a problem for me’ were fairly neutral, with no variation bygender.This indicates that, in general, NSAs are not significantly worriedby their financial position. The presence in the household of a workingpartner reduces the likelihood of agreement with this statement. This



suggests that there may be a pooling of income across households, whichenables NSAs to accept low-paid or irregular work.

The average score for both sexes in relation to the statement ‘I havegreater independence than in a permanent full-time post’ indicatesthat respondents feel their current contractual status gives them a littlemore independence than a full-time permanent post. The gender split,however, is marginal.

In theory, portfolio working offers the opportunity to subsidise lesswell-paid activities with more remunerative work, although the answersto the statement ‘My wages subsidise my other activities’ suggest that thisis not happening in practice. The difference in responses by gender issmall but achieves significance, implying that male respondents may becross-subsiding their own activities more than women.

The analysis of individual universities showed that there were somerespondents who agreed strongly with the statement ‘I can carry out myfamily responsibilities with this contract’, particularly amongst womenwith younger families. Overall, though, the aggregated male and femaleresponses fall into the neutral range. Even so, significantly more womenthan men agree with the comment, which implies that women are

TABLE 7Advantages/disadvantages of this type of contract

Statements Mean maleresponse

Mean femaleresponse

It is an advantage to be able to work from home 4 4.3***Receiving an irregular or uncertain income is a

problem for me3.5 3.5

I have greater independence than in apermanent full-time post

4.2 4.1

My wages subsidise my other activities 3.3 3.1*I can carry out my family responsibilities with

this contract3.5 3.9***

The lack of pension and other benefits worriesme

3.3 3.5*

I do not like the isolation from colleagues 3.2 3.4**I feel there is no established career path 3.8 3.9I am concerned by the lack of training provision 3.1 3.1

Note: Agreement ranged on a scale of 1–6, where 1 represents strong disagreement and6 represents strong agreement.*** indicates that the means are significantly different at the 1% level (most significant).** indicates that the means are significantly different at the 5% level (more significant than10%).* indicates that the means are significantly different at the 10% level.



behaving in a more ‘traditional’ way, shouldering much of the burden ofcaring for dependents. Again there is a significant statistical correlationbetween the presence of child and adult dependents and agreement withthe statement.

While fractional permanent staff have guaranteed pro rata benefits,those on temporary or fixed-term contracts may miss out. Since morethan three quarters of respondents to this survey fell into the two lattercategories, this suggests that missing out on benefits would remain anissue for them. Responses to the question ‘The lack of pension and otherbenefits worries me’ were, however, fairly neutral, but women showedmarginally more concern. Despite this result, women were more likely tohold permanent part-time contracts than men, with the attendantbenefits. Therefore, this concern may possibly reflect a previous brokenemployment history.

Across the sample a neutral response emerged to the statement ‘I donot like the isolation from colleagues’. However, this conceals slightlygreater concern over isolation on the part of women. Again this seemsstrange given their greater likelihood to have permanent part-timecontracts. Low status might explain this concern. There are propor-tionately fewer female professors and managers amongst the sample,although they are otherwise well represented throughout the levels of theacademic hierarchy as a whole.

Neither men nor women expressed strong feelings in response to thetwo final statements: ‘I feel there is no established career path’ and ‘I amconcerned by the lack of training provision’. This lack of concern mayreflect the high level of qualifications and experience of academics as agroup, and their self-starting nature.

Income

Respondents were questioned about their individual and householdincome to gauge how they fared compared to average earnings, and thesurvey also enquired about the proportions of their income coming fromdifferent posts.The sample was fairly evenly distributed across individualincome bands from less than £10,000 per year to in excess of £40,000.The modal individual income band was under £10,000, with 20 per centof the sample, capturing a disproportionate number of women. However,10 per cent earned more than £40,000, with men being more likely tofall in to this category than their female peers.

The modal band for annual household income was £20,000 to£29,999 (18.5 per cent of the sample). Again, there was a fairly even



spread across the other bands, with the exception of the lowest band, lessthan £10,000, which covered just 3.5 per cent. The highest band forannual gross household income was the £70,000 or above band, com-prising 14 per cent of respondents. The difference in individual andhousehold income may explain why NSAs are so unconcerned by theirsalary levels, and the low response to the question about the cross-subsidy of activities: they may be receiving subsidies from their partners.

Respondents were also asked about the proportion of their individualincome that they earned from their various positions (Table 8). A similarproportion of income was earned from the main (academic) job (49 percent) and the second position (48 per cent). The proportion of incomecoming from a third job was less than 25 per cent. This disguises aslightly greater reliance on the main job as a source of income for femalerespondents. While these figures may seem initially confusing, manyrespondents held only one paid job, which distorts the average contri-bution to total income from each subsequent post.

Conclusions

Theoretically, the NSAs in this full sample corresponded to the profile of‘portfolio worker’ that can be found in the literature.They were all highlyqualified and about two-thirds had other paid employment, with a size-able minority having second and third jobs. However, a detailed readingof the results indicates that there is much less activity corresponding toHandy’s ideal than might have been expected. Multiple job holding wasconcentrated into the 45–54 age bracket, with few holding more thantwo posts. The range of work performed is quite narrow. It was mostcommon to find that the second job was also in education, althoughconsultancy and health care also featured.

TABLE 8Proportion of income from different jobs

Meanresponse

Male Female

Proportion from main job(observations)

48.5% 40% (480) 53.5% (744)

Proportion from second job(observations)

48% 47% (315) 49% (453)

Proportion from third job(observations)

23.5% 24.5% (117) 23% (132)

Columns do not add up to 100 as many respondents had only one job, and few had three.



Strikingly, there is an issue about how committed the sample was tothis kind of work. Almost three quarters had been appointed since 2000,and just over a third since 2003 (i.e. they had only about one year’sservice at the time of the survey), although just over six in ten had hadtheir contract renewed. Even so, they did not exhibit strong commitmentto their current contractual status, as demonstrated by the proportiondesiring other, more permanent forms of employment. Overall, 37 percent declared that they would accept a permanent job on their currenthours, although 27 per cent definitely would not. However, only 30 percent stated that they would accept a full-time permanent job, with 43 percent decidedly opposed. This implies that there is, arguably, generalsatisfaction with current hours, with only 30 per cent definitely wantinga full-time permanent job, but less adjustment to insecurity with – asnoted above – just over one-third wanting a permanent job providedit was on their current hours. There is, then, a sign here of adaptationto certain forms of non-standard status (hours), but not to others(impermanence).

The majority of respondents had chosen their contractual status (61per cent), with a minority having been compelled to accept it (39 percent), although many more men (54 per cent) than women (30 per cent)felt so compelled. Despite this, choice and compulsion did not feature asmajor determinants in guaranteeing satisfaction with their status. Forexample, amongst those choosing their status, 39 per cent would accepta permanent job on current hours, while amongst those compelled, thepercentage was almost identical, at 37 per cent.

So why had respondents accepted this kind of contract? There is noevidence that they had ‘always wanted this type of contract’ (responseswere neutral): indeed, there was slight agreement overall that ‘no othertype of contract’ had been available. Furthermore, they disagreed thattheir contract allowed them to earn more money or that it enabledthem to avoid administrative duties. However, they maintain that thecontract allowed them ‘to engage in a variety of other activities’ (par-ticularly amongst men) and that it allowed them to ‘combine a jobwith family responsibilities’ (particularly amongst women). Indeed, itappears that the advantages of being an NSA may emerge after theevent, perhaps as a process of post hoc rationalisation. In this respect,answers to questions about the advantages and disadvantages of thiskind of contract were revealing. Respondents were apparently uncon-cerned about the irregularity of income and lack of pensions and ben-efits, perhaps because they were being subsidised by a working partner.Nor was there evidence that their job was helping to finance other



activities, and they were indifferent over the isolation and the lack ofcareer and training. However, women, as noted above, valued theirchance to combine the job with family responsibilities, while both sexesindicated favourable feelings about the independence they had andtheir ability to work from home.

If the survey is representative of higher education, it would suggestthat the concept of a ‘portfolio worker’ is fragmented and that theboundaries with casual work are unclear. In summary, around four in tenNSAs are ‘pushed’ into this kind of work through redundancy or expiryof an existing contract. Six in ten are ‘pulled’, having made a consciouschoice to take up this kind of employment. The latter group wouldappear to be the classic ‘portfolio workers’. Yet only 20 per cent wouldreject outright a permanent job on current hours, with the remainderwilling to accept or consider it. This does not imply a great deal ofadaptation to portfolio status, possibly because their expectations havenot been met. Nevertheless, 41 per cent would reject a full-time perma-nent position.

Higher education continues to expand in the UK, with many of theassociated new posts conforming to the NSA category outlined in thispaper. This might have been expected to dovetail with a trend towardsportfolio working by academics. However, the findings discussed heresuggest that that may not be the outcome. NSAs were less than effusiveabout the benefits of their employment status. They expressed someanxiety over isolation, irregular income and lack of pensions andbenefits.The opportunity to work part-time is clearly popular, but theseareas of uncertainty may also create barriers to the extension of portfoliowork along with the issues of ‘race, gender, disability and class’ noted byBradley et al. (2000, p. 69).

Acknowledgements

We should like to thank the School of Management at Royal HollowayUniversity of London for funding the pilot survey on which this researchis based, and particularly the Nuffield Foundation for funding the fullsurvey through their Social Sciences Small Grants Scheme. At RoyalHolloway, we are grateful to Jackie Brackenbury, Ceri Bowyer and ChrisHitchins, who all helped generously with the administration, and toDiego Vazquez, who performed the bulk of the data entry. Janet Fraserassisted with editing and proof reading. We greatly appreciate the effi-ciency and patience of staff in the personnel departments across all 10



universities in our sample, who undertook to dispatch the questionnaireson our behalf. However, we take responsibility for the quality of theresearch itself.

Note

1. All reported percentages over 2 per cent are rounded to the nearest whole numberwhich may result in totals slightly more or less than 100 per cent.

References

Allen-Collinson, J. (2000) Social Science Contract Researchers in Higher Education:Perceptions of Craft Knowledge. Work, Employment and Society, 14 (1), pp. 159–171.

Barnes, N. and O’Hara, S. (1999) Managing Academics on Short Term Contracts. HigherEducation Quarterly, 53 (3), pp. 229–239.

Barrett, G. F. and Doiron, D. J. (2001) Working Part Time: By Choice or By Constraint.Canadian Journal of Economics, 34 (4), pp. 1042–1065.

Blackwell, R. (2003) Bring this supply in from the cold. Times Higher, 28 February, p. 23.Bradley, H., Erickson, M., Stephenson, C. and Williams, S. (2000) Myths at Work.

Cambridge: Polity Press.Brown, D. and Gold, M. (2004) Profile of Non-Established Teachers and Fractional Academic

Staff at Royal Holloway University of London. Unpublished paper, School of Manage-ment, RHUL, February.

Bryson, C. (2004) The Consequences for Women in the Academic Profession of theWidespread Use of Fixed Term Contracts. Gender,Work and Organization, 11 (2), pp.187–206.

Bryson, C. and Barnes, N. (2000) The Casualisation of Employment in Higher Educationin the United Kingdom. In M. Tight (ed.), AcademicWork and Life:What It Is to Be anAcademic, and How This Is Changing. Amsterdam/London: JAI, pp. 187–241.

Cloonan, M. (2004) Notions of Flexibility in UK Higher Education: Core and PeripheryRe-visited? Higher Education Quarterly, 58 (2/3), pp. 176–197.

Cohen, L. and Mallon, M. (1999) The Transition from Organizational Employment toPortfolio Working: Perceptions of Boundarylessness. Work, Employment and Society, 13(2), pp. 329–352.

Cutler, T., James, P. and Waine, B. (1997) Atypical Employment and the New Universities:the Case of Part-Time Staff. Higher Education Review, 29 (3), pp. 23–40.

Fraser, J. and Gold, M. (2001) Portfolio Workers: Autonomy and Control amongstFreelance Translators. Work, Employment and Society, 15 (4), pp. 679–697.

Gold, M. and Fraser, J. (2002) Managing Self-Management: Successful Transitions toPortfolio Careers. Work, Employment and Society, 16 (4), pp. 579–597.

HESA (2006) HESA Press Release, with accompanying Staff Data Definitions. http://www.hesa.ac.uk/press/pr105/pr105.htm, last accessed 23 October 2006.

Handy, C. (1990) The Age of Unreason. London: Arrow Books.Handy, C. (1994) The Empty Raincoat. Making Sense of the Future. London: Hutchinson.Husbands, C.T. (1998a) Job Flexibility andVariations in the Performance and Motivations

of Longer-Term Part-Time Teaching Auxiliaries at the London School of Economicsand Political Science. Work, Employment and Society, 12 (1), pp. 121–144.

Husbands, C. T. (1998b) Assessing the Extent of Use of Part-Time Teachers in BritishHigher Education: Problems and Issues in Enumerating a Flexible Labour Force.Higher Education Quarterly, 52 (3), pp. 257–282.

Husbands, C. T. and Davies, A. (2000) The Teaching Roles, Institutional Locations,and Terms and Conditions of Employment of Part-Time Teachers in UK HigherEducation. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 24 (3), pp. 337–362.



http://www.hesa.ac.uk/press/pr105/pr105.htm

http://www.hesa.ac.uk/press/pr105/pr105.htm

Mallon, M. (1998) From Public Sector Employees to Portfolio Workers: Pioneers or NewCareers? In C. Mabey, D. Skinner and T. Clark (eds.), Experiencing Human ResourceManagement. London: Sage, pp. 169–186.

NATFHE (2001) In from the Cold? Part-TimeTeaching, Professional Development and the ILT:a Union Learning Fund Project. London: NATFHE.

Stanworth, C. and Stanworth, J. (1997) Managing an Externalised Workforce: FreelanceLabour-Use in the UK Book-Publishing Industry. Industrial Relations Journal, 28 (1),pp. 43–55.

Wilson, T. (1991) The Proletarianisation of Academic Labour. Industrial Relations Journal,22 (4), pp. 250–262.



academics on non-standard contracts in uk universities: portfolio work, choice and compulsion

Documents