1. The Social Networks of Public Academics Dave Griffiths University of Stirling Sunbelt XXVIII San Diego 15 th March 2009

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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?

5. 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

6. 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.

7. Networks generated Affiliations to professional bodies Charity trusteeships Club memberships Corporate advisory boards Corporate directorships Editorial positions Educational board memberships Employers Honorary degree awarding institutions Memberships of social organisations Professional body directorships Quango advisory positions Quango directorships School attended Social organisation directorships University attended Visiting professorships held

8. Potentially biased networks Affiliations to professional bodies Charity trusteeships Club memberships Corporate advisory boards Corporate directorships Editorial positions Educational board memberships Employers Honorary degree awarding institutions Memberships of social organisations Professional body directorships Quango advisory positions Quango directorships School attended Social organisation directorships University attended Visiting professorships held

9. Boards in sampleCharities Examples of networks Educational boards School attended

10. Cores and components of all quangos

11. Core-components analysis by composition of boards

12. Composition of boards excluding potentially biased networks

13. Positioning of actual academics

14. Positions of quangos academics sit on AcademicsAll board members Central40%19% Peripheral9%16% Isolate2%18% Other50%48%

15. Average betweenness centrality All networksNon-educational networks Overall average82 nd 84 th Boards with academics69 th 72 nd Boards without academics92 nd 94 th

16. 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

17. Academics mutual charities ties

18. Academics charity ties through all quangocrats

19. 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.

20. 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

21. 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.