High Educ (2008) 56:167183 DOI 10.

1007/s10734-007-9096-y

How has Mexican faculty been trained? A national perspective and a case study
Laura Elena Padilla

Published online: 1 October 2007 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Abstract This article depicts how faculty members at Mexican higher education institutions have been prepared in order to assume their professional responsibilities. It relies on three elements: First, a secondary analysis of a national faculty survey composed of 3,861 faculty members from 65 institutions; second, 34 interviews conducted in eight higher education institutions; third, a primary analysis of an institution faculty survey in a public autonomous university. Results are presented regarding the following issues: rst, the central traits of anticipatory or formative in-site faculty socialization; second, the changes in the highest degree faculty obtained at entry into academic life as compared to the obtained degree at the time of the survey; third, the formative time patterns during facultys higher education training, fourth, the conditions of study under which faculty members obtained their graduate degrees; and fth, the academic inbreeding phenomenon. Keywords Academic profession Faculty socialization Higher education Anticipatory socialization Formative in-site socialization Mexico

Introduction The composition, organization, values, and capacities of higher education professors largely determine the response that universities can offer to society (Altbach 1999; Schuster and Finkelstein 2006). Therefore, it is important to know who the faculty members are and what they do in order to improve the quality of the processes and outcomes involved in higher education. The academic profession in Mexico is a recent research area, which emerged around 1985, when Manuel Gil Anton and other academics (1994) started a research program on this topic. Nevertheless, this research area has evolved and been enriched with diverse theoretical and methodological perspectives (Garca et al. 2003). Academic profession is a controversial topic itself, since it is considered on one hand as a
L. E. Padilla (&) Department of Education, Universidad Autonoma de Aguascalientes, Av. Universidad 940, Bosques del Prado, Aguascalientes 20100, Mexico e-mail: lepadill@correo.uaa.mx

123

168

High Educ (2008) 56:167183

sub-specialization of other professions, and on the other hand as the profession of professions or key profession, as professors educate the rest of the professionals (Becher 2001; Clark 1997). This study addresses the issue of how faculty members at Mexican higher education institutions have (and have not) been prepared in order to assume their professional responsibilities and what should be done to improve the process of anticipatory socialization to professional norms. The Mexican higher education faculty presents great diversity, coexisting faculty members with different types of anticipatory or formative socialization (Tierney and Rhoads 1993). Anticipatory socialization is described as an upward-moving spiral through which newcomers pass through the formal and informal recurring processes toward the goal of professionalization. Students who are outsiders become insiders in a dialectical pattern and in a developmental process in which they internalize a value system indicative of the newly accepted role (Austin 2002; Weidman et al. 2002). Anticipatory faculty socialization in Mexico presents different characteristics than it does in other countries because an important part of this process (mainly graduate education) generally has occurred after professors have initiated their academic career. That is, most faculty members in Mexico obtained their graduate degrees once they became professors. Thus, probably formative in-site socialization would be a more appropriate term to refer this socialization stage concerning Mexican faculty. This socialization process inuences the nature and quality of faculty work. It is important to note that this in-site socialization occurs at the same time that organizational socialization is taking place (Tierney and Bensimon 1996). Two extreme types of faculty members can be identied in Mexican higher education. The rst type comprises faculty members who devote half or less of their professional activity to their academic career, even though some of them are full-time faculty; they focus on a single academic function, usually undergraduate teaching, and they have obtained only a bachelors degree. Whereas, a second type includes other faculty members who are fully involved in their academic career, devote most of their professional practice to this activity and are part of an academic community. They focus on both undergraduate and graduate teaching, as well as research. Most of them have obtained a Ph.D., and their academic productivity is signicant. Unfortunately, the former type of faculty has predominated in Mexican higher education; they represent about two thirds of total Mexican faculty (Gil Anton et al. 1994; Gil Anton 1996; Grediaga 2000; Galaz 2002; Padilla 2003). According to the National Association of Universities and Higher Education Institutions (ANUIES 2006) there were about 260,150 faculty appointments in Mexico in 2005, as compared to 25,056 faculty appointments that existed in 1970, when the accelerated expansion of higher education in Mexico began. In fact, Gil Anton (2001) notes that 12.9 faculty positions were created each day on average between 1970 and 1984, the period concerning this expansion, which was characterized by the lack of policies and growth planning (Galaz 1998). Since 1970, higher education in Mexico has evolved from an eliteserving system to a massive-oriented one, with the consequences of the large and rapid expansion of the system in order to respond to the demand for access into higher education (Trow 2000). Most faculty members had only obtained a bachelors degree, and were hired on an hourly basis in order to satisfy the increasing student enrollment, which produced some of the problems that currently challenge the higher education system. Concerning the years from 1960 to 2005, several authors (Gil Anton et al. 1994; Grediaga 2000) identify four different stages in the development of the Mexican higher education system, and as a consequence of the academic profession. First, there was a

123

High Educ (2008) 56:167183

169

moderate expansion period of the system, from 1960 to 1969. A highly accelerated expansion of higher education institutions characterized the second period, from 1970 to 1982. The third period underwent a slow down in the growth of the higher education system; it occurred from 1982 to 1989. Finally, the fourth period, from 1990 to date, has been characterized by a renovated expansion and diversication of the higher education system, accompanied by an effort toward evaluation and accountability and the increase of private higher education. Regarding faculty members in 2005, only 29.4% were full-time professors. In addition, 81% of all faculty was located in undergraduate education institutions, out of which only about 7% had obtained a Ph.D. Faculty members in public institutions accounted for 62% of all faculty in undergraduate education in the country. Thus, most faculty members do not have the necessary specialized training to carry out the traditional academic functions, especially research, in a competitive context (ANUIES 2006). It is important to note that throughout the last fteen years, the federal government in Mexico has fostered public policies and programs focused on increasing the number of faculty members with graduate education, granting fellowships to current faculty members so that they can earn a Ph.D. or a masters degree. The most important program has been the Program for Faculty Improvement (PROMEP), which was rst implemented in 1996, and it is still in progress. This program targets full-time faculty in public universities, which comprise about 10% of national faculty. According to SEP (2006), in 1998 about 8% out of full-time faculty in public universities had obtained a Ph.D., while in 2006 such proportion rose to 22.1%. In this same spirit, another policy, regarding public and private institutions, is related to the faculty hiring process, requiring that only professors who have already obtained graduate degrees can occupy new full-time faculty appointments. In addition to the federal government, this policy has been inuenced by accrediting mechanisms or agencies, at the national or international level (such as FIMPES or SACS), mainly in private institutions. Another problem affecting faculty socialization, is the institutional faculty hiring trend in Mexican higher education institutions, known as academic inbreeding, in which undergraduate or graduate students from a specic institution tend to be hired, once they nish their studies, as faculty members for that same institution. This trend can be associated with the following. International studies about the academic profession (Altbach 1996) have found that professional or disciplinary loyalty is stronger than campus loyalty in academia. However, these studies show that in Mexico, institutional loyalty occupies the rst rank of importance for faculty members (Gil Anton 1996). These previous considerations constitute the framework to explore some characteristics of the formative in-site socialization in Mexican faculty.

Methodology This study is based on three main sources. First, a recent national faculty database, built upon the National Study of the Academic Profession in Mexico, coordinated by Roco Grediaga in 2001, which included a representative sample of 3,861 faculty members (Grediaga et al. 2004). Second, 34 interviews of faculty members were carried out in eight different higher education institutions in Mexico in 2002 (Padilla 2003). Third, a faculty database, built upon a faculty survey that can be considered as a case study. This faculty survey was conducted in 2005 at the Autonomous University of Aguascalientes, which is a pubic state university; the survey was based in a representative sample of 393 faculty

123

170

High Educ (2008) 56:167183

members. The two latter studies have been conducted by the author of this work. Additionally, the author carried out the secondary analysis of the national faculty data base, which was made available by Roco Grediaga.

Analysis and results This section presents the main ndings along ve aspects. First, the central characteristics of anticipatory or formative in-site faculty socialization; second, the changes in the highest degree faculty obtained at entry in academic life as compared to the time when surveys were applied; third, the changes in the time academics take to nish their graduate studies; fourth, the conditions under which faculty members study and obtained their graduate degrees; and fth, the academic inbreeding phenomenon.

Main formative socialization characteristics Anticipatory socialization during the bachelors program has been the most signicant inuence in the decision to pursue an academic career. Most faculty members in Mexico have begun their academic career immediately after they obtained their bachelors degree, or even before (about 84%) (Grediaga et al. 2004). In the case of the Autonomous University of Aguascalientes (UAA), this proportion was 88.3%. Despite the importance of this level, no higher education institution in which professors were interviewed seemed to have implemented any activity explicitly oriented to socialize and to attract talented undergraduate students into academia. Moreover, ndings from the interviews tended to conrm the prevalence of certain conditions during the formative socialization stage in Mexican higher education, at the national level and within the case study, which were similar to those described in several studies (Wulff and Austin 2004). These studies have indicated that this stage has been characterized by lack of systematic professional development opportunities, minimal feedback and mentoring from faculty, and few opportunities for guided reection. As a result, students do not acquire a sufcient understanding of faculty work, life, and career, or other career options (Austin 2002, p. 104; Weidman et al. 2002). With regard to socializations dimensions, the interviews showed that faculty socialization tended to be individual, informal, and non-sequential (Tierney and Rhoads 1993). The results from the interviews, point out the academic environment and the facultys motivation as the main factors inuencing the student decision to pursue an academic career and the acquisition of the initial academic culture. Faculty-student and student-student interaction. Results from the interviews. Concerning their own experience as undergraduate and graduate students, senior faculty seemed to depict their own student-faculty relationship as being more formal and distant than the one they observe having with junior faculty (particularly in the case of large institutions), which might indicate that the nature of this interaction is recently changing toward a closer relationship. Most interviewees noted that it was more difcult to interact with professors hired on an hourly basis because they did not have ofce hours, or sufcient time to attend students. This is relevant, given the fact that about two thirds of academics in Mexico are hired on an hourly basis.

123

High Educ (2008) 56:167183

171

In most cases interviewees noted that student-student interaction was a signicant aspect in their higher education experience. This interaction was mostly the result of student initiative; students organized themselves in teams or small groups to support their studies. Most faculty members have in common an accidental entrance to the academic life, as most of them were invited to become academics. Whatever the case, this occupational option was not clearly dened as a professional practice alternative.

Highest degree obtained at entry in academic life and at the time of surveys Mexican faculty presented signicant education mobility from the point at which they started their academic career to the time of the survey, and along the different periods in which they entered academia (chi square, P \ 0.0001). About 57% of faculty in the national sample, and 50.5% in the UAA sample increased their higher education level once they became professors (education mobility), which is lower that the national trend. Two variables were compared in order to identify this faculty education mobility: the highest degree obtained at entry in academic life and the highest degree obtained at the time of the survey, that is, 2001 for the national sample, and 2005 for the UAA. Tables 1 and 2 present these variables according to the period of entry in academic life. Although ve different periods were established, the following tables only present the extreme periods. Similar results can be observed in Tables 1 and 2, for the national as well as for the institution sample. On the one hand, a little more than 80% of academics in both samples had only obtained a bachelors degree or less when they entered an academic career, however around half this proportion maintained this education level at the time of the survey. On the other hand, professors who had obtained a masters degree at entry in academic life increased from about 8% to 31% at the time of the survey; and those who had obtained a doctoral degree increased from 1.9% to 10.5% in the national sample and from 0.5 to 5.8% in the institution sample. Regarding the period of entry in academic life, the ndings show the following. The rst period, characterized by an accelerated expansion of higher education in Mexico, accounted for the highest proportion of professors who were hired with or even without complete undergraduate studies (national level, 88.5%; institution level, 95.9%). At that time, this expansion required a large number of new faculty members in order to meet the increasing student demand and it was difcult to nd professors with an adequate

Table 1 Highest degree reported at entry and in 2001 by faculty coming into academic life in 1984 or before, and in 19972001 (percentages) (National sample) Period of entry in academic life Highest degree reported at entry Bachelors degree or less 1984 or before (n = 1,558) 1997 to 2001 (n = 801) Total 88.5 65.0 83.8 Masters degree 6.2 11.9 8.3 Ph.D. degree 0.7 3.7 1.9 Highest degree reported in 2001 Bachelors degree or less 34.3 57.3 42.4 Masters degree 32.2 20.6 31.1 Ph.D. degree 15.7 4.9 10.5

Note: The sums of row percentages reported at entry and in 2001 are not equal to 100% because other degree options were not included

123

172

High Educ (2008) 56:167183

Table 2 Highest degree reported at entry and in 2005 by faculty coming into academic life in 1980 or before, and in 20002005 (percentages) (UAA sample) Period of entry in academic life Highest degree reported at entry Bachelors degree or less 1980 or before (n = 49) 2000 to 2005 (n = 120) Total 95.9 80.0 88.3 Masters degree 0.0 12.5 6.7 Ph.D. Degree 0.0 0.8 0.5 Highest degree reported in 2005 Bachelors degree or less 10.4 64.2 43.3 Masters degree 50.0 24.2 32.0 Ph.D. degree 8.3 1.7 5.8

Note: The sums of row percentages reported at entry and in 2000 are not equal to 100% because other degree options were not included

specialized training. Consistently, only about 6% of professors who entered in this period had obtained a masters degree, and about 1.0% had obtained a doctoral degree, at the national level; whereas, academics with graduate education were inexistent at the institution level. It is important to highlight that most professors from this period increased their education level; in both cases, they presented the highest education mobility, even though they are currently close to retirement. Finally, the proportion of faculty members who initiated their academic life having obtained graduate education was higher during the most recent period (national level, 15.6%; institution level, 13.4%), as compared to the previous ones; despite this increment seems to be small, it could reect changes in faculty hiring policies in public as well as in private institutions. Nevertheless, this period also presented the lowest percentages of professors who had obtained graduate education at the time of the survey, that is, the lowest education mobility. It could be explained because professors have not had sufcient time yet to continue their specialized training. Thus, the number of academics with graduate education in this period was still low, which implies that most of them should continue improving their education level once they become faculty members. This fact has to be considered by education policies and nancial support programs. For instance, at the institution level, the proportion of academics who have recently initiated their academic career (from 2000 to 2005) having obtained graduated education was about half the national trend, since only 12.5% of academics had obtained a masters degree and 0.8% a doctoral degree. This situation, as it was mentioned, implies that they should continue improving their education level once they become faculty members. This education mobility will require specic programs and nancial resources in order to increase the level of formal education of Mexican faculty members. In addition, these academics face the complexity of the academic work with few academics skills and low academic socialization. The highest degree obtained by academics seemed to be related to other variables, such as the following. Regarding parents level of education, it was evident that professors who had parents with low formal education tended to present the lowest levels with respect to highest degree obtained at entry as well as at the time of the survey. In fact, the general proportion in the national sample of professors who were rst generation in their families to go to college was about 69% and in the case study was 70%. According to Clark (1987) the type of discipline in which academics were trained and the type of institution in which they work also differentiated them. Signicant differences were found according to the type of discipline (chi square, P \ 0.001). Faculty members associated with pure/hard disciplines (biological and physical sciences, agriculture, etc.)

123

High Educ (2008) 56:167183

173

presented the highest education mobility; for instance, at the national level, about 18% of these professors had obtained a Ph.D., and less than one third had only obtained a bachelors degree in 2001. In contrast, faculty members in soft disciplines, pure and applied (social sciences, education, administration, etc.), comprised the groups with the most reduced percentages of professors with a doctoral degree in 2001 (less than 8%), and the largest with only a bachelors degree (about half the professors). Similar results were observed concerning the institution sample. About a quarter of academics in pure/hard disciplines had obtained a Ph.D. in 2005, while the lowest proportions of them were observed in applied/soft disciplines. As for the type of institution, at the national level, two types of institutions, which accounted for about a quarter of all faculty in the sample (large comprehensive institutions in the Metropolitan area of Mexico City, and research institutions), presented the highest proportions of professors who had obtained a doctoral degree in 2001 (about 24 and 21%, respectively). The proportion of academics with a Ph.D. in 2001 was higher in public institutions (12%) than in private ones (7%). These academics accounted for 7% of faculty in comprehensive institutions outside Mexico City. The UAA is a public comprehensive institution located outside Mexico City, and, as mentioned above, 6% of its faculty had obtained a Ph.D. at the time of the survey. These faculty characteristics strongly contrast with those of faculty in other countries. For instance, according to Schuster and Finkelstein (2006) in the United States, the proportion of full-time faculty holding the doctorate has increased steadily over the past quarter century from 57.3% in 1969 to around 62.8% in 1998 (p. 165), even though differences were found depending on the type of higher education institution. In addition, in this country full-time faculty represents about 60.8% of all faculty.

Formative time patterns during facultys higher education training This section analyzes the results related to the academic programs in which professors acquired their specialized training. Formative time patterns are concerned with variables such as the period in which faculty members begun their graduate education, the number of years they took to nish their coursework, the time taken to obtain the degree in every academic program once they nished their coursework, as well as the number of years elapsing between programs. Although only about 32% of academics in both samples obtained at least a masters degree, and 10% (national sample) and 6% (institution sample) a doctoral degree, higher percentages of faculty are included in this section, as it considers not only those who had already completed masters and doctoral programs, but also those professors who began but stopped, and were still enrolled in graduate education programs at the time of the surveys. According to this, at the national level about 57 and 19% out of all faculty, had entered masters and doctoral programs. In the case of the institution sample these proportions were 56 and 10%, respectively. Thus, information related to these variables was available for these proportions of faculty members in the samples. Tables 3 and 4 present the corresponding information. In this case, the periods of entry into masters and doctoral programs disaggregate the former period and the two latter periods, since it was in these two periods when federal programs oriented to in-service faculty training were implemented. It could be that the major inuence of federal and institutional policies and programs oriented to faculty development was reected in the sharply rising large number of

123

174

123
Ph.D. program (n = 733, 19%) From masters course work to Ph.D. Time to complete course work Time to complete degree after course work From Ph.D. course work to postdoc program Time to complete degree after course work 2.1 3.7 1.3 1.5 0.8 0.8 1.7 2.7 4.5 2.4 1.2 0.007 3.3 0.9 4.4 1.6 1.6 1.3 0.2 4.5 5.2 1.7 3.7 4.4 3.1 4.6 1.2 1.6 0.7 0.7 1.8 3.5 3.6 5.1 0.09 1.02 0.0 1.4 2.9 5.2

Table 3 Time to course work, time to degree, and time to entry into the next program by period of entry into masters and doctoral studies (National sample) (years means and standard deviations)

Period of entry into masters and Ph.D. program/frequencies and percentages by period

Masters program (n = 2,194, 57%)

Time to complete course work

1971 to 1984

Master: n = 550, 25%

3.6

Ph.D.: n = 149, 20%

1.8

1991 to 1996

Master: n = 632, 28.3%

3.3

Ph.D.: n = 254, 34.5%

0.9

1997 to 2001

Master: n = 526, 23.2%

2.9

Ph.D.: n = 169, 23.1%

0.6

Masters program

3.4

High Educ (2008) 56:167183

Ph.D. program

1.5

Table 4 Time to course work, time to degree, and time to entry into the next program by period of entry into masters, and doctoral studies (Institution sample) (years means and standard deviations) Ph.D. program (n = 39, 10.0%) From masters course work to Ph.D. Time to complete course work Time to complete degree after course work From Ph.D. course work to postdoc program

High Educ (2008) 56:167183

Period of entry into masters and Ph.D. program/frequencies and percentages by period Time to complete degree after course work

Masters program (n = 217, 56.0%)

Time to complete course work

1989 or before 4.6 5.1 1.9 1.9 0.5 0.8 1.9 2.9 0.6 2.2 0.0 3.0 3.5 1.0 3.7 1.2 0.5 1.2 2.5 3.8 0.6 2.2 1.9 4.0 6.3 7.8 0.3 0.7 1.3 1.1 1.3 3.3 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Master: n = 36, 15.3%

2.3

Ph.D.: n = 4, 10.3%

0.8

1990 to 1999

Master: n = 97, 44.2%

2.3

Ph.D.: n = 21, 53.8%

0.7

2000 to 2005

Master: n = 84, 38.6%

2.02

Ph.D.: n = 14, 35.9%

0.3

Total

2.2

0.6

n. a. = not available

175

123

176

High Educ (2008) 56:167183

professors who started graduate programs during the period 19912005, in which these policies were implemented. At the national level, more than half professors out of all faculty with graduate education (masters program: 28.3 and 23.2; doctoral program: 34.5 and 23.1), started masters and doctoral programs, between 1991 and 2001. At the institution level, the inuence of federal programs, particularly of the Program for Faculty Improvement (PROMEP), was reected in a more signicant way than in the national case. This situation can be associated with the fact that this type of university, as a public state university, is the focus of the federal program above mentioned. The proportion of professors who had started a master program or obtained a masters degree in the institution sample was about 56%, out of which 82.8% did that during the last 15 years (44.2% 1990 1999, and 38.6% 20002005). With regard to the doctoral level, the proportion of faculty members in this situation was about 10.0%, out of which 90.0% did it during the same period of time (53.8% from 1990 to 1999, and 35.9% from 2000 to 2005). Albeit this is a central outcome, it is important to note that these policies have been usually aimed at fulltime faculty members in public institutions, leaving out part-time faculty, faculty hired on an hourly basis (who represented about 60% of all faculty), as well as faculty working in other types of higher education institutions. This general result was accompanied at the national level by a signicant reduction in the time taken by professors to study these graduate programs. Once academics nished their coursework at the bachelors level, they took about 5 years on average with a standard deviation of 7 years (indicating a high dispersion among them) to start a masters program. These lapses tended to decrease through the different periods, from a mean of about 8 years in the rst period to a mean of less than 0.3 years in the last two periods. This result was a signicant change in the formative time pattern of academics because the youngest faculty had tended to start graduate studies almost immediately after they nished their bachelors program. This change could also be related to the higher education policies and programs above mentioned, since institutions are now preferentially hiring professors with a higher level of formal education, that is, a masters degree or a Ph.D. The time taken to complete the masters coursework tended to steadily decline (3.62.9 years) through the different periods, as did the dispersion within every period (1.80.6 years). The highest mean time taken to obtain masters degree after professors completed their course-work, was about 2.1 years, and it remained constant over 20 years, from 1970 to 1990; however, it decreased to 1.3 years during the fourth period and to 0.8 years during the last period. This also occurred regarding the dispersion within the periods, where it diminished from 3.7 years during the second period (the accelerated expansion of higher education period) to 0.8 in the last period. It was evident that the mean and standard deviation of the elapsed time to begin doctoral programs markedly decreased during the last two periods (from 1991 to 2001). This mean was about 3.7 years during the rst two periods with a high standard deviation (5 years); however, during the next period the mean was about 0.2 year, and by the last period, this mean was even smaller, indicating that academics started the doctoral program immediately after they nished their masters coursework. It can be observed that this decreasing trend in the time taken to complete and to obtain masters and doctoral degrees was not as strong at the institution level as it was at the national level. It could be that the high proportions of professors who started graduated education in the period of time between 1990 and 2005 in the institution case prevented the ability to identifying a changes in time pattern. There were no important differences regarding the different periods of entry by time to complete Ph.D. coursework, with the exception of the last period, in which the mean time

123

High Educ (2008) 56:167183

177

and standard deviation (3.3 and 1 years respectively) were lower than the average results. In the case of time to obtain the Ph.D., during the second period the mean time and standard deviation were higher than the general results. However, during the last two periods these statistics tended to diminish from 1.6 to 0.7 years and from 2.5 to 0.7 years, respectively. Although the time to start a postdoctoral program decreased, this trait was accelerated the most during the last two periods. During the rst three periods the elapsed mean time from doctoral coursework to the beginning of the postdoctoral program decreased from 4 to 2.6 years, as did the standard deviation, from 5 to 2.8 years. However, during the last two periods these means were close to zero years, indicating that some professors started the postdoctoral program immediately after they concluded their doctoral studies. This general decreasing time pattern made evident a growing interest in carrying out graduate studies in a shorter time span between the different graduate education levels, as well as the average time to nish coursework and to obtain the degree, especially during the period of time in which important federal policies oriented to faculty members were implemented. Nevertheless, the decrement in these variables could also reect inadequate academic requirements in the type of graduate programs in which academics have been enrolled. One of the most discussed issues in the Mexican higher education context has been the quality of the training that in-service faculty is acquiring in these graduate education programs. It is frequently criticized that most professors are only interested in obtaining the degree by itself, because it could represent better hiring and promotion conditions; however, the degree does not guarantee that professors have acquired adequate academic skills and are willing to improve through them, their academic work. It is important to note that federal policies, concerning the quality of graduate programs, have established the number of students that nish their course work, and obtain the degree in a certain period of time (three years for masters degrees, and four years for doctoral n programs) as a criterion to fulll in order to be included in the Padro Nacional de Posgrados [The National Register of Graduate Progams]. Students enrolled in programs included in this register are granted a federal scholarship. Thus, strong pressure to obtain the degree in pre-established periods of time exists. Some critics point out that this type of policies can diminish the quality of graduate training, even though this situation is not necessarily true. Nevertheless, additional research is needed to adequately assess the training quality of graduate programs.

Conditions of study In this section, the conditions of study that faculty members underwent during their graduate studies are described. Conditions of study basically refer to aspects such as student status (full-time, part-time), having scholarships, and having a paid job while they were students. Although the number of professors with graduate education has increased during their academic career, the conditions of study in the masters and doctoral programs were not satisfactory enough at the national, as well as at the institutional either levels. The proportion of professors, who had been full-time students at the national level, was about 51 and 62% in masters and doctoral programs, respectively. About 70 and 65% of professors had a paid job during their masters and doctoral program, and only 55 and 65% of professors were granted a scholarship. Although, these results made it evident that there were better conditions of study at the doctoral than in the masters level, they did not depict

123

178

High Educ (2008) 56:167183

an optimal situation in carrying out graduate studies, which preferentially require a high involvement; this involvement implies being a full-time student with a scholarship that covers economic needs, thereby avoiding the need for a paid job. Similar results can be observed at the institution level. With regard to masters programs, despite the proportion of students with a scholarship was a little higher (63%), there were less full-time students (43%) and more students with a paid job (79%), as compared to the national level. With regard to doctoral programs, it can be observed that the main difference was found in the proportion of students with a scholarship, which was higher at the institution (78%) than at the national level (65%). The difference in the proportion of students with scholarships in the UAA can be associated with this being a public institution, and with the periods in which professors started their graduate education, since they were granted federal support through specic programs such as PROMEP. Regarding the period of entry into masters programs, the results at the national level indicated that the proportion of professors who were full-time students seemed to decrease through the periods; it went from 64% in the period of accelerated expansion of higher education, to 34% in the last period; conversely, the proportion of professors who had a paid job tended to increase from 63% in the same period to 81% in the last period. A similar trend can be observed at the institution level, even though the change was not so radical, full-time students passed from 46 to 43% and students with a paid job went from 72 to 83%. It is important to bear in mind that about 85% of these professors carried out their graduate studies during the two most recent periods, thus it is most difcult to follow the changing trend. With regard to doctoral conditions of study at the national level by period of entry into Ph.D. programs, about 58% of professors entered this level during the last two periods (35% and 23%, respectively), as previously mentioned. The proportion of professors who were full-time students seemed to decrease through the different periods, similar to the masters program. During the period of accelerated expansion, two thirds of professors were full-time students; during the next periods, however, this proportion declined from 68 to 50% during the last period. Concerning faculty members who were granted a scholarship, during the rst two periods the proportions of professors in this situation were similar to the general results. Nevertheless, in the fourth period, the proportion of professors who were granted a scholarship increased to 75%. This fact could be associated with national higher education faculty development programs such as PROMEP and SUPERA. Given these programs, it was not expected that this proportion would decrease to its lowest value (56%) during the last period. Conversely, the proportion of professors who had a paid job decreased during the fourth period (58%) but increased during the last period (80%). The prevalent conditions of study during doctoral programs may be explained in part as the response of faculty members to the policies of the Secretariat of Public Education (SEP) and some accrediting agencies that were requiring higher levels of formal higher education from their academics. Thus, faculty members could have decided to begin a Ph.D. even in nontraditional programs, which did not consider the possibility for granting student scholarships. Finally, it was observed that the last two periods presented the most unfavorable student conditions of study. This situation might make evident inconsistencies with higher education policies expectations, which have insisted in increasing the number of faculty members who had obtained a graduate degree, but it is possible that these graduate programs had not provided the best conditions of study. Signicant differences in conditions of study were found when the type of higher education institution in which professors studied their masters program. Large

123

High Educ (2008) 56:167183

179

comprehensive institutions outside the Metropolitan area presented unfavorable conditions regarding the proportion of professors who were full-time students (38%) and had a paid job (81%). This type of institutions comprised 32% of all faculty who started a master program. Large comprehensive institutions in the Metropolitan area comprised 32% of professors who started a masters program. These institutions presented conditions similar to those found in the general results, with the exception of the proportion of professors who were full-time students, which was a little higher (58%). Conditions of study in foreign institutions (23% faculty) tended to be similar to these results as well, apart from the proportion of professors who had a paid job, which was a little lower (66%). Small research institutions (2% of professors) presented better conditions of study in all aspects with the exception of the proportion of professors who were granted a scholarship, which was similar to the general results. Finally, Mexican institutions with programs accredited by the National Council for Science and Technology, CONACyT, (8.5% of professors) were the type of institution with the best conditions of study in all aspects. In these programs four fths of professors were full-time students, two fths had a paid job, and three quarters had a scholarship. These results may suggest that the accrediting mechanism used by CONACyT made a difference in graduate programs as compared to others, thereby supporting their evaluation policies. It should be noted that comprehensive institutions in the Metropolitan area and research institutions also have a large number of their graduate programs accredited through this same mechanism. Regarding doctoral programs, the results indicated that large comprehensive institutions in the Metropolitan area (44%) and Mexican institutions with programs accredited by The National Council for Science and Technology (CONACyT) (28%) included most professors who entered doctoral programs. Foreign institutions (14%) and comprehensive institutions outside the Metropolitan area (10%) accounted for about a quarter of faculty members in these programs. The group composed of Mexican institutions with programs accredited by CONACyT was the only type in which the proportion of professors who were full-time students was higher than the general results described above (86%) as were the proportions of professors who were granted a scholarship (89%) and those who had participated in an academic exchange (40%). In the other types the proportion of professors who were full-time students was lower than the general results (less than 54%), and those who had a scholarship presented similar or lower proportions than the average results. It is important to highlight that although comprehensive institutions in the Metropolitan area included the largest proportion of professors who entered doctoral programs, conditions of study there were not so adequate. Only a little more than half of the professors were fulltime students and had a scholarship; and about four fths had a paid job during their studies. In addition to the type of institution, the type of discipline (academic eld) in which professors were located also made a signicant difference. These two variables continue to represent the main differentiating axes among academics (Clark 1987). In general, pro fessors in comprehensive institutions, mainly in the metropolitan area of Mexico City, and in pure/hard disciplines (Becher 2001), such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, physics, among others, presented the best socialization conditions. The metropolitan region of Mexico City had a concentration of about 32% of total faculty members in the country, which indicates a high level of centralization trend in education. At the institution level, these ndings are signicantly different regarding type of academic eld. That is, professors who are in pure-hard disciplines presented higher education mobility and better conditions of study during their masters and doctoral

123

180

High Educ (2008) 56:167183

programs. In addition, full-time faculty also had better conditions of study and represented about 90% of faculty members in doctoral programs. However, additional research is needed in order to know better the conditions of study that applied in these programs and the quality of the programs, as well as the motivations of academics for starting graduate studies. Results revealed evident that those professors who studied in certain types of institutions and in certain disciplines were more oriented toward graduate education, in which graduate programs also presented more adequate conditions of study. Finally, an essential issue to be explored in other studies is the nature and structure of Mexican graduate programs (Fresan 2002). It could be that graduate education in Mexico is not satisfying the most specialized training needs required by faculty members in all type of disciplines and institutions in an adequate way.

Academic inbreeding The results of the national study indicated that a high proportion of faculty members (53%) have been employed in institutions in which they had previously obtained their undergraduate or graduate education (academic inbreeding) (Grediaga et al. 2004). Moreover, about 75% of professors have remained in the same geographic region where they were born and in the same institution where they were employed for the rst time. Most faculty members in the national sample (96%) were born in Mexico. The interviews also reected that academic inbreeding might be associated with cultural issues related to institutional and geographic mobility. It is important to note that this phenomenon has a positive side, it can reinforce institutional continuity and stability; however, some critics point out that this process can also generate stagnation. The interviews indicate that junior faculty with this characteristic tended to adjust better to their institutions although at rst they might have difculty in being accepted by some of their former professors as colleagues in a horizontal relationship. Given the high incidence of this academic condition in higher education institutions, it would be important that institutional policies and programs could improve their advantages and diminish their disadvantages. In the institution sample the results

Table 5 Professors currently hired in UAA, where they had previously studied their undergraduate and graduate programs (academic inbreeding) (Institution sample) (percentages; chi square, P \ 0.001 in all cases) Period of nishing bachelors program and entry into masters and Ph.D. program 1989 or before 1990 to 1999 2000 to 2005 N academic inbreeding % N enrollment in the program Academic inbreeding Bachelors program 38.1 68.9 89.6 216 57.1 378 N = 189, 50.0 N = 122, 32.3 N = 67, 17.7 130 52.0 217 55.4 58.2 Masters program 19.4 N = 36, 15.3 N = 100, 42.4 N = 100, 42.4 4 10.3 39 28.6 0.0 Ph.D. program 0.0 N = 4, 10.5% N = 21, 53.8% N = 14, 35.9%

123

High Educ (2008) 56:167183

181

related to academic inbreeding are presented in Table 5, according to the periods in which academics nished their bachelors program and entered to graduate programs. Results drawn from the faculty survey at the UAA indicate that 57% of faculty members in the sample obtained their bachelors degree in this same institution. With regard to masters programs, it is important to note that 52% out of academics enrolled in a masters program, were enrolled at UAA, while in doctoral programs, only 10% (take out) of all faculty members enrolled in doctoral programs studied at the UAA. This relatively low proportion, as compared to the masters program, could be explained in part, because this institution offers only a few doctoral programs. These results are consistent with the national ndings. Academic inbreeding tended to increase through the different periods, being signicantly higher during the most recent periods. It also emphasizes that current professors who studied their bachelors and masters programs between 1990 and the time of the survey (2005) have been hired by the UAA in larger proportions than before 1990, so that academic inbreeding is a phenomenon that has to be considered in a more explicit way in federal as well as in institutional policies and programs oriented to Mexican faculty members.

Some conclusions and recommendations In addition to the ndings discussed above, several recommendations can be tendered; these are valid at the national as well as the institution levels, as main ndings in the case study were consistent with the national trends. First, concerning faculty formative in-site socialization, national and institutional Programs should be implemented in order to attract talented students into the Mexican academic profession, improving anticipatory socialization. These potential academics should be better prepared to face their professional responsibilities. It was detected that higher education institutions have not implemented any program to attract talented students into the academic profession in both, the national as well as the institutional levels; moreover, formative socialization can be described as informal, non-sequential, and individual. In fact, most faculty members have in common an accidental entrance to the academic life. With regard to the highest degree at entry into an academic career, higher education institutions should also revise recruiting and employment faculty policies. These policies could consider differences according to the academic discipline in which potential professors have been trained, as well as the type of higher education institutions and the conditions of study, in which they were trained. Since the number of academics who were hired with graduate education even in the most recent period was still low, most of them should continue improving their education level once they become faculty members. This fact has to be considered by education policies and nancial support programs. Regarding in-service faculty members, better programs and policies at the federal, state, and local levels should be revised in order to enrich the development of these academics towards professional norms. Special emphasis should be given to the Ph.D. level in order to foster the development of research as a central academic function in higher education institutions, especially public institutions. It is expected that this level of faculty training could inuence the development of science in such a way as to contribute to the development of the country. Concerning formative patterns and conditions of study the following is relevant. The major inuence of policies and programs oriented to faculty development was reected in

123

182

High Educ (2008) 56:167183

the sharply rising number of professors who started graduate programs during the period 19912005, in which these policies were implemented. This general result was accompanied at the national level by a signicant reduction in the time professors took to study these graduate programs. Nevertheless, this decrement could also reect inadequate academic requirements in the type of graduate programs in which academics have been enrolled. Moreover, the conditions of study during graduate education did not depict an optimal situation in carrying out graduate studies, which preferentially require a high involvement; this involvement implies being a full-time student with a scholarship that covers economic needs, thereby avoiding the need for a paid job, even though, the results made evident better conditions of study at the doctoral than at the masters level. Thus, additional research is needed in order to know better the conditions of study and the quality of graduate education, as well as the motivations of academics for starting graduate studies. The results also revealed that those professors who studied in certain types of institutions and in certain disciplines were more oriented toward graduate education, in which graduate programs also presented more adequate conditions of study. Finally, an essential issue to be explored in other studies is the nature and structure of Mexican graduate programs (Fresan 2002). It could be that graduate education in Mexico is not satisfying the most specialized training needs required by faculty members in all type of disciplines and institutions in an adequate way. Part-time faculty and faculty employed on an hourly basis deserve special attention regarding development and training programs, since they represent about two thirds of total faculty in Mexico and in the UAA. Nevertheless, these faculty members are consistently excluded from federal, state, and even institution policies. Finally, additional research is also needed with regard to academic inbreeding and how this trend could be associated with low institutional and geographic mobility as well as with cultural patterns that emphasize institutional loyalty over discipline loyalty in Mexican Faculty (Altbach 1996). Given the high incidence of this academic condition in higher education institutions, it is important that institutional policies and programs could improve their advantages and diminish their disadvantages.

References
Altbach, P. G. (Ed.). (1996). The international academic profession: Portraits of fourteen countries. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Altbach, P. G. (1999). Harsh realities. The professoriate faces a new century. In P. G. Altbach, R. Berdahl, & P. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-rst century (pp. 271297). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ANUIES (Asociacion Nacional de Universidades e Instituciones de Educacion Superior). Anuarios esta dsticos, Mexico. Available: http://www.anuies.mx/estadisnew/. n n xico. Temas cruciales de la ANUIES. (2006). Consolidacio y avance de la educacio superior en Me agenda. Mexico: ANUIES. Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty. Graduate school as socialization to the academic career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 94122. Becher, T. (2001). Academic tribes and territories. Barcelona: Edit. Gedisa. Clark, B. (1987). The academic life: Small worlds, different worlds. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation & or the Advancement of teaching. Clark, B. (1997). Small worlds, different worlds: The uniqueness and troubles of American academic profession. Daedalus, Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 126(4), 2142. Fresan, M. (2002). Formacion doctoral y autonomia intelectual. Relaciones causales [Doctoral training and intellectual autonomy. Causal relationships]. Ph.D. Dissertation. Mexico: Universidad Anahuac. Galaz, J. F. (1998). Mexican academics at the turn of the twenty-rst century. Paper presented to Dr. J. Schuster at Claremont Graduate University.

123

High Educ (2008) 56:167183

183

Galaz, J. F., (2002). Job satisfaction of Mexican faculty in a public state university: Institutional reality through the lens of the professoriate. Dissertation submitted to the faculty of Claremont Graduate University. Claremont, CA: Dissertation. Garcia, S., Grediaga, R., & Landesmann, M. (2003). Los academicos en Mexico. Hacia la constitucion de un campo de conocimiento, 19932002 [Academics in Mexico: Toward the development of a new eld of n xico: 19922002. Mexico: COMIE, knowledge]. In P. Ducoing (Ed.), La Investigacio educativa en Me SEP, CESU. micos Mexicanos. Gil Anton, M., et al. (1994). Los rasgos de la diversidad: Un estudio sobre los acade Mexico: Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana, Unidad Azcapotzalco. Gil Anton, M. (1996). The Mexican academic profession. In P. G. Altbach (Ed.), The international academic profession: Portraits of fourteen countries (pp. 305337). Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Gil Anton, M. (2001). An inside view of Mexican higher education: The academic profession. Nov. 117. Lecture presented at Claremont Graduate University, California. n mica, disciplinas y organizaciones. Mexico: Asociacion Nacional de Grediaga, R. (2000). Profesio acade Universidades e Instituciones de Educacion Superior, ANUIES. blicas y cambios en la profesio acade n mica Grediaga, R., Rodrguez, R., & Padilla, L. (2004). Polticas pu xico en la u ltima de cada. Mexico: ANUIES. en Me xico. Padilla Glz., L. (2003). Faculty academic socialization. Strengthening the academic profession in Me Ph.D. Dissertation. Claremont, CA: Claremont Graduate University. Schuster, J. H., & Finkelstein, J. (2006). The restructuring of academic work and careers. The American Faculty. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. lisis de su operacio e n SEP. (2006). Programa de mejoramiento del profesorado, PROMEP. Un primer ana mico de las universidades pu blicas. Mexico: SEP, Secretara de impactos en el fortalecimiento acade Educacion Superior. Tierney, W. G., & Bensimon, E. M. (1996). Promotion and tenure. Community and socialization in academe. New York, NY: State University of New York Press. SUNY Series. Tierney, W. G., & Rhoads, R. A. (1993). Enhancing promotion, tenure, and beyond: Faculty socialization as a cultural process. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 6. Washington, DC: The George Washington University. Trow, M. A. (2000). From mass higher education to universal access: The American Advantage. Center for Studies in Higher Education. Paper CSHE1-00 (March 1). http://repositories.cdlib.org/cshe/CSHE1-00. Weidman, J. C., Twale, D. J., & Stain, E. L. (2002). Socialization of graduate and professional students in higher education. A perilous passage? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(3). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Wulff D. H., & Austin A. E. (Eds.). (2004). Paths to the professoriate. Strategies for enriching the preparation of future faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

123