The Social Networks of Public Academics

Dave Griffiths

University of StirlingSunbelt XXVIII

San Diego

15th March 2009

Academics and marginalisation

Expansion of UK higher education sector viewed as diminishing the position of academics (Halsey 1992, Miller 1995, Annan 1999)

Wages have been slashed in real terms (Shattock 2001, Sampson 2004)

Academics have lost access to policy networks (Jones 1994, Jenkins 1996)

Academics viewed as no longer part of the UK social elite

Are academics so marginalised?

Social stratification scales refute these claims, placing academics highly (Ganzeboom and Treiman 1996, Oesch 2006)

Lowering of wages ≠ creating discrepancies Academics remain in control of functions

important to them (Moran 2003)

7 of the 35 Knighthoods given in the 2008 New Years Honours went to academia

Academics and Quangos

Quangos are independent public bodies, providing a function of government but free from party political influence

Academics are viewed as holding few positions on such boards, thus placing them distant from sites of influence

But, are numbers or network positions most important?

Dataset

Data collected on 187 organisations 2,858 individuals, including 219 academics A series of one-mode networks created of

shared directors across various spheres Core and component analysis used to

identify most central and peripheral bodies Positioning of boards containing academics

examined

Academic quangocrats

A total of 219 academics (7.7%) They sit on 86 boards (46.0%)

Academics are more numerous on these boards than the literature suggests

These academics are from a wide variety of institutions and career positions. Mostly commonly professors of the longest established institutions.

Networks generated

Affiliations to professional bodies

Charity trusteeshipsClub membershipsCorporate advisory boardsCorporate directorshipsEditorial positionsEducational board

membershipsEmployersHonorary degree awarding

institutions

Memberships of social organisationsProfessional body directorshipsQuango advisory positionsQuango directorshipsSchool attendedSocial organisation directorships University attendedVisiting professorships held

Potentially biased networks

Affiliations to professional bodies

Charity trusteeshipsClub membershipsCorporate advisory boardsCorporate directorshipsEditorial positionsEducational board

membershipsEmployersHonorary degree awarding

institutions

Memberships of social organisationsProfessional body directorshipsQuango advisory positionsQuango directorshipsSchool attendedSocial organisation directorships University attendedVisiting professorships held

Boards in sample Charities

Examples of networks

Educational boards School attended

Cores and components of all quangos0

510

15C

ore

s

0 5 10 15 20Components

Core-components analysis by composition of boards

05

10

15

Co

res

5 10 15 20Components

Academics

05

10

15

Co

res

0 5 10 15 20Components

Non-Academics

Source: PhD Dataset (See Griffiths 2008).

Composition of boards excluding potentially biased networks

02

46

81

0C

ore

s

0 5 10 15Components

Academics

05

10

15

Co

res

0 5 10 15 20Components

Non-Academics

Source: PhD Dataset (See Griffiths 2008).

Positioning of actual academics0

510

15C

ore

s

5 10 15 20Components

Academics

Positions of quangos academics sit on

Academics All board members

Central 40% 19%

Peripheral 9% 16%

Isolate 2% 18%

Other 50% 48%

Average betweenness centrality

All networks Non-educational networks

Overall average 82nd 84th

Boards with academics 69th 72nd

Boards without academics 92nd 94th

Academics social capital

Academics are generally taking positions relevant to:– Academia: related to academic funding– Research interests: related to their areas of

expertise– Locality: positions as local or regional figureheads

Governance roles are related to their work The centrality of academics is generated by

their prestige and social positioning

Academics mutual charities ties

Academics charity ties through all quangocrats

Effects of academic positions

Academics sit in positions with ties to the social elite

They populate boards alongside those who tie the networks together

This is largely through memberships of well-connected institutions

They hold ties to the social elite and ruling classes, providing influence.

Conclusions

The voice of academia flows freely through quango boardrooms

There are high numbers of academics on such boards and in influential positions

High prestige of academics produces their positioning

Academics remain strongly connected to members of the social elite

Bibliography

Annan, N. (1991) Our Age: The Generation That Made Post-War Britain, London, Fontana.

Ganzeboom, H. B. G., and Treiman, D. J. (1996) Internationally Comparable Measures of Occupational Status for the 1988 International Standard Classification of Occupations, Social Science Research, Vol. 25, pp. 201-239.

Griffiths, D. (2008) The Social Networks of the Public Elite, PhD thesis, University of Manchester.

Halsey, A. H. (1992) Decline of Donnish Dominion, Oxford, Clarendon Press. Jenkins, S. (1996) Accountable to None: The Tory Nationalisation of Britain, London,

Penguin. Miller, H. (1995) “States, Economies and the Changing Labour Process of Academics:

Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom” in Smyth, John (ed). Academic Work, Buckingham, Open University Press, pp. 40-59.

Moran, M. (2003) The British Regulatory State: High Moderism and Hyper-Innovation, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Oesch, Daniel. (2006) Redrawing the Class Map: Stratification and Institutions in Britain, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland, Basingstoke, Palgrave MacMillan.

Sampson, A. (2004) Who Runs This Place? The Anatomy of Britain in the 21st Century, London, John Murray.

Shattock, M. (2001) The Academic Profession in Britain: A study in the failure to adapt to change, Higher Education, vol. 41, pp. 27-41.