View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Employment of Academic Faculty after Reaching Retirement Age: An Asset or a Burden? -- Ariel University as a Case Study

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Employment of Academic Faculty after Reaching Retirement Age: An Asset or a Burden? -- Ariel University as a Case Study
Language: English
Authors: Erez Cohen (ORCID 0000-0002-6765-9825), Nitza Davidovitch (ORCID 0000-0001-7273-903X)
Source: Studies in Higher Education. 2024 49(11):2195-2207.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Teacher Retirement, Older Workers, Higher Education, College Faculty, Faculty College Relationship, Faculty Evaluation, Faculty Publishing, Teacher Effectiveness, Educational Policy, Policy Analysis
Geographic Terms: Israel
DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2023.2293931
ISSN: 0307-5079
1470-174X
Abstract: This study centers on public policy concerning the retirement age in Israeli academia. The purpose of this study is to analyze the justification for the existing policy on this issue that allows academic institutions to end the employment of faculty when reaching the legal retirement age. The research method is based on analysis of the research and teaching data for 485 senior faculty members at Ariel University in Israel, which constitutes a case study. The research findings show on one hand higher research output among faculty who have passed the retirement age versus those who have not reached retirement, and on the other lower mean teaching evaluation scores received by faculty above retirement age that those received by younger faculty. The research conclusions determine that reaching retirement age does not necessarily affect the professional output of faculty or justify their removal from the academic institution. Even if the teaching capabilities of older faculty members are negatively affected over the years, their contribution to the academic institution is mostly influenced by their scholarly output, positive impact on the institution's image, and not inconsiderable contribution to it, deriving from their considerable experience that is utilized for supporting and directing younger faculty. Therefore, a possible conclusion is that faculty members who have reached retirement age constitute an asset rather than a burden for the academic institution. Hence, the findings question the justifications for the public policy implemented in Israel in this area and call for its reexamination.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1447602
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGSia1ciM1G-BxwyoQ8N76ZAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDP8iloRUfUM5jJmRJAIBEICBmyYT5ga5RtW2JQD-T4mTXVdxgUeN7kQyvjG77MMOlJwRY6Fi7fpfeYQZNnv8_To6qaHut7PzSCNZqLu9MNnfMpPwwGcBYj5zTFr8TBFzYBrD2EOiNcsDeX3_2WCP_Ga2knZyjGdnNOfDUIi-5EcP9n1pooi3HuKw905uPH0n-xNE3hgyRzega61mrxEU9ZFqjSNnUJCc15V9rW2I
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0180733072;she01nov.24;2024Nov11.04:24;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0180733072-1">Employment of academic faculty after reaching retirement age: an asset or a burden? – Ariel University as a case study </title> <p>This study centers on public policy concerning the retirement age in Israeli academia. The purpose of this study is to analyze the justification for the existing policy on this issue that allows academic institutions to end the employment of faculty when reaching the legal retirement age. The research method is based on analysis of the research and teaching data for 485 senior faculty members at Ariel University in Israel, which constitutes a case study. The research findings show on one hand higher research output among faculty who have passed the retirement age versus those who have not reached retirement, and on the other lower mean teaching evaluation scores received by faculty above retirement age that those received by younger faculty. The research conclusions determine that reaching retirement age does not necessarily affect the professional output of faculty or justify their removal from the academic institution. Even if the teaching capabilities of older faculty members are negatively affected over the years, their contribution to the academic institution is mostly influenced by their scholarly output, positive impact on the institution's image, and not inconsiderable contribution to it, deriving from their considerable experience that is utilized for supporting and directing younger faculty. Therefore, a possible conclusion is that faculty members who have reached retirement age constitute an asset rather than a burden for the academic institution. Hence, the findings question the justifications for the public policy implemented in Israel in this area and call for its reexamination.</p> <p>Keywords: Higher education; public policy; retirement age; academic faculty; research output; life expectancy</p> <hd id="AN0180733072-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The retirement age and the option of subsequently continuing in one's job is a familiar issue of much public interest, both in general and in academia in particular. Since academic work is not physical and involves research, teaching, guidance, and participation in academic committees and conferences, which are activities that require operating human cognition rather than physical strength, the question to be asked concerns the added value and the limitations of retirement age in academia. This question receives further significance in light of the rising life expectancy in recent years, which leaves those reaching retirement age with many years of life with no occupation, despite their continuing occupational competence.</p> <hd id="AN0180733072-3">The rise in life expectancy and its various consequences</hd> <p>Life expectancy at birth in developed countries in general and in Israel in particular has risen by thirty years over the last century (Alcover [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>]; Christensen et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref2">9</reflink>]). This trend is concurrent with significant technological and medical advancement and constitutes a global phenomenon expected to continue (Harper [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref3">27</reflink>]). Figure 1 presents the changes in the life expectancy at birth in Israel from 2010 to 2021.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Life expectancy in Israel (Male and female) for the years 2010–2021. Source: Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, Table 3.5: Life Expectancy by Sex.</p> <p>Furthermore, one of the consequences of the increase in life expectancy in Israel is the increase in the population's aging rate. The Israeli population is getting older as manifested by the rise in the population of citizens over 65 years old and by the increase in its relative proportion (in percentages) of the total Israeli population, as shown in the following figure.</p> <p>The accelerated and consistent rise in life expectancy (Figure 1) and the aging of the population trend (Figure 2) have many consequences for various life areas, which require government attention to the formulation of public policy accordingly (Cohen [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref4">11</reflink>]). A good example of this is the call to formulate public policy on employing people with dementia in the employment market (Braw et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref5">6</reflink>]). Also, the need to formulate public policy on regulating the system of higher education to train graduates necessary to care for the aging population, such as caregivers for those who need nursing care, social workers, physiotherapists, and so on (Cohen [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref6">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Number of Israeli citizens over 65 years old in 2015–2021 (in thousands). Source: Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, Table 2.3: Population by Population Groups, Religen, Sex and Age.</p> <p>To this should be added the not inconsiderable impact of the population's aging on the welfare policy, which must be adapted to the expansion of the elderly population who require nursing care in order to meet their unique needs efficiently and well (Cohen and Benvenisti [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref7">12</reflink>]; Lin et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref8">32</reflink>]). The effect of the population's aging on the healthcare system must also be taken into account as affecting its budget and policy on caring for elderly (Caspersen et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref9">8</reflink>]; Reinhardt [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref10">36</reflink>]; Yang, Norton, and Stearns [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref11">50</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180733072-4">Working after retirement</hd> <p>There is an extensive literature that deals with the retirement experience of older workers. For example, Michelle Silver's [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref12">37</reflink>] book 'Retirement and its Discontents' that addresses the experience of five different groups' experience of retirement (doctors and CEOs, housewives, elite athletes, and professors), with a focus on individuals who have found retirement challenging (Silver [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref13">37</reflink>]). An earlier study presented a results of a national sample which examined the attitudes to retirement among academic university staff, who had retired 3–5 years earlier (Tizard and Owen [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref14">41</reflink>]) and there are many other relevant studies.</p> <p>At present, workers reach retirement age when they are usually still capable of occupying their jobs. In addition, where in the past retirees lived about ten years after their retirement, at present the forecast is for more years of life as retirees. Accordingly, some choose to continue with some type of employment after retiring (part-time jobs, self-employed, or temporary jobs). As a consequence, many retirees feel they are still capable and therefore wish to continue working in order to meet various needs (health, mental, and financial) (Dingemans and Henkens [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref15">18</reflink>]; Staudinger et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref16">38</reflink>]; Van Dalen, Henkens, and Schippers [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref17">42</reflink>]).</p> <p>This employment is referred to in the literature as 'bridge employment' as it bridges the time when the employee reached the formal retirement date and between the time when he/she actually chooses to retire. In the context of academic faculty members, bridge employment can be expressed in a number of ways: continued employment at the same academic institution with no change in terms, retirement at age 67, and salaried employment after retirement (while drawing the pension) or part-time employment as a lecturer from abroad at another academic institution or at several institutions at the same time. This phenomenon has various causes and background variables (Beehr and Bennett [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref18">5</reflink>]; Davis [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref19">17</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180733072-5">Causes and background variables of working after retirement age</hd> <p>While a few studies have aimed to understand the expectations and experiences of bridge employees (Mazumdar, Warren, and Brown [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref20">33</reflink>]), many studies have tried to detect the reasons and causes of choosing to engage in 'bridge employment' after reaching retirement age: A study on this subject indicates five background variables related to retirees' choice of 'bridge employment' after retirement. These variables are motivation for a career, human capital, social capital, identity, and personality (Sullivan and Al Ariss [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref21">40</reflink>]). Accordingly, a study that examined which workers choose 'bridge employment' after retiring found that this choice is affected by attitudes to work, features of the role occupied by the retiree before retirement, and the retiree's work-related achievements (Gobeski and Beehr [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref22">25</reflink>]). Another study argued that the worker's subjective anticipated life expectancy underlies the decision whether to engage in 'bridge employment' after retiring (Van Solinge and Henkens [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref23">44</reflink>]), while other study indicated that how Perceived organizational support) POS('fits' with older workers' psychological contracts informs their motivation to engage in bridge employment (Garcia et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref24">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>A further study found that the retiree's attitudes to retirement, style of behavior, and various demographic variables can help predict the intention to continue working after retirement and the choice of working as a volunteer or for a salary (Griffin and Hesketh [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref25">26</reflink>]). Another study found that individual qualities, work-related psychological variables, and family-related variables help predict the retiree's decision to work after retirement (Wang et al. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref26">47</reflink>]). A different study argued that the psychological experience of aging plays a role in shaping the retiree's decision to choose 'bridge employment' after retirement (Fasbender et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref27">21</reflink>]). Another determined that economic variables have a considerable effect on the retiree's decision to continue working after retirement, where the tax structure of the U.K – Insurance system and retirement funds have a crucial contribution to this decision (French [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref28">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>Another study argued that the decision to continue working after retiring is reached mainly by retirees with relatively high levels of financial capital and education, those with entrepreneurial attitudes, and those who perceive their retirement as completely involuntary. Retirees choose to continue working after retirement from a perspective of opportunity rather than need or necessity (Van Solinge [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref29">43</reflink>]) and other studies on the subject indicate that, in addition to factors related to income level and work, there are also unrelated variables that contribute to the retiree's choice of 'bridge employment', such as marital satisfaction (Pengcharoen and Shultz [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref30">34</reflink>]), general satisfaction with life (Kim and Feldman [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref31">30</reflink>]), and health condition (Kerr and Armstrong-Stassen [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref32">29</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180733072-6">Employment after retirement age as a global phenomenon</hd> <p>Employment after retirement age has been practiced in many countries for more than three decades to various extents and for different reasons. A study conducted in the United States indicates that many older Americans choose to remain in the workforce after retiring, as they do not perceive retirement as a one-time event but rather as a gradual process (Cahill, Giandrea, and Quinn [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref33">7</reflink>]; Pleau and Shauman [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref34">35</reflink>]). A study conducted in Japan indicates that this is common there as well. According to the Japanese study, the scope of the phenomenon is affected by institutional arrangements related to the pay awarded to retirees (Yamada and Higo [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref35">49</reflink>]).</p> <p>A study conducted in the Netherlands indicates that one-third of retirees are reintegrated in the workforce upon retiring (Henkens and Solinge [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref36">28</reflink>]), while a cross-sectional study conducted in twenty European countries indicated that 'bridge employment' is indeed common in all of them but variables such as health conditions, retirement conditions, unemployment rate, and GDP level in each country affect the timing of retirement from the workforce (Axelrad [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref37">3</reflink>]). Similar to the global trend, in Israel too the frequency of employment after retirement age is increasing, where gradually more men and women are choosing to remain in the workforce even after reaching the legal retirement age (Figure 3).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3. Employed after retirement in Israel in 2010–2020, male and female (thousands). Source: Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics; Table 2.3: Employed Persons, by Industry, Age, Population Group, and Sex.</p> <hd id="AN0180733072-7">Retirement age in academia</hd> <p>Previous studies examined the issue of the retirement age in academia (Baldwin, Belin, and Say [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref38">4</reflink>]), its impact on academic faculty (Crow [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref39">13</reflink>]; Xie and Ali [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref40">48</reflink>]), and its various implications for academic institutions (Larson and Gomez Diaz [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref41">31</reflink>]; Sugar et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref42">39</reflink>]). In the mid-1980s, the compulsory retirement of academic faculty in the United States was canceled, and studies published since then indicate an increase in the number of older faculty at colleges and universities (Ashenfelter and Card [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref43">2</reflink>]). In Britain as well, the retirement age is no longer compulsory at most of the academic institutions[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref44">1</reflink>] and faculty can choose to remain in their academic positions (Danson and Gilmore [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref45">14</reflink>]). At the same time, this reality encompasses opportunities and threats for the academic labor market.</p> <p>On one hand, older academics can have a positive contribution to their institution through their expertise and experience. In addition, by continuing to work, paying taxes, and maintaining their health, they might indirectly reduce health and social welfare costs. Then again, in the case of a decrease in academic positions, older employees who remain in their positions might constitute an obstacle or limit the employment and promotion opportunities of younger colleagues (George and Maguire [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref46">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>Similarly, in Israel as well a bill to cancel mandatory retirement was submitted – as in the US and Britain – although according to the civil service regulations ('Takshir') employees can only remain in their jobs after age 70 in special instances.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref47">2</reflink>] In fact, the campaign to cancel mandatory age-related retirement focuses on canceling the currently existing legal right to obligate workers to retire when reaching the age of 67. The claim is that the state cannot have it both ways – on one hand raise the retirement age and on the other claim that older employees are holding on to jobs that could have been occupied by younger workers.</p> <p>Israeli academic faculty who reached retirement claimed that despite their advanced age they feel capable and that they have accumulated a great deal of experience that would be wasted with their legally mandated retirement. These attitudes were evident in the series of studies conducted by Davidovitch and Eckhaus, who found that academic faculty in Israel are in favor of their continued academic activity in research, guidance, and teaching even after reaching retirement age and see many benefits of this for themselves, young faculty members, and the academic institution per se (Davidovitch and Eckhaus [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref48">15</reflink>]). According to the researchers, an academic institution that chooses to leave veteran faculty in the system despite reaching retirement age could enjoy the accumulated benefits resulting from the valuable knowledge and experience accumulated as a result of the institution's investment in them (Davidovitch and Eckhaus [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref49">16</reflink>]; Eckhaus and Davidovitch [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref50">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>Nevertheless, while these studies examined the subjective views of academic faculty on the issue of retirement age in academia, no study has objectively examined the various academic performance measures of academic faculty who reach retirement age in order to formulate conclusions regarding the justification for their continued employment after retirement age. In addition, the previous studies on policy changes regarding retirement age in academia in other countries did not examine the objective justifications for this course but rather only the attitude of academic faculty to the issue or the effect of canceling the mandatory retirement in academia for the academic institutions in general and academic faculty in particular.</p> <p>Therefore, the current study, which focuses on academic faculty who reach retirement age and public policy on this issue, objectively examines their various performance measures (in research, teaching, and contribution to academic administration), while comparing to these to those of younger faculty who have not yet reached retirement age, thus constituting a pioneer study with a considerable contribution to examining this issue in Israel in particular and in the world in general.</p> <hd id="AN0180733072-8">Research method</hd> <p>This study examines the performance measures of academic faculty in research, teaching, and contribution to academic administration, comparing between those who have passed the retirement age and those who have not. Research output was examined by the number of citations and the h-index score (extracted from the Google Scholar databases), which constitute extremely significant performance measures for the appointment and promotion of academic faculty in Israel. Satisfaction with teaching was determined by the teaching evaluation score, which reflects students' evaluation of lecturers. The management contribution of faculty was examined based on the management roles occupied by faculty in practice. The study collected data on the performance measures of 485 senior faculty, constituting a case study of one university-level academic institution (Ariel University in Israel). The data analysis was based on the use of statistical research tools, with the aim of examining the associations between personal-familial background variables and professional background variables, and research output.</p> <hd id="AN0180733072-9">Findings</hd> <p>The research findings presented below list the research and teaching output of 485 academic faculty from different departments at Ariel University, 297 men (61.2%) and 188 women (38.8%). The mean age of the participants was 55 (with a standard deviation of about 11 years). Most of the respondents were Israeli-born. Table 1 presents a summary of the participants' personal demographic characteristics.</p> <p>Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the research participants (<emph>N</emph> = 485).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody><tr><td>Age</td><td>Mean</td><td>54.61</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Standard deviation</td><td char="(">10.69</td></tr><tr><td>Minimum</td><td char="(">29</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum</td><td char="(">94</td></tr><tr><td>Country of birth (%) <italic>n</italic></td><td>Israel</td><td char="(">379 (78.1%)</td></tr><tr><td>USSR</td><td char="(">62 (12.8%)</td></tr><tr><td>US</td><td char="(">13 (2.7%)</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td char="(">31 (6.4%)</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td char="(">485 (100%)</td></tr><tr><td>Gender (%) <italic>n</italic></td><td>Male</td><td char="(">279 (61.2%)</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td char="(">188 (38.8%)</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td char="(">485 (100%)</td></tr><tr><td>Academic rank (%) <italic>n</italic></td><td>Full professor</td><td char="(">23 (4.7%)</td></tr><tr><td>Associate professor</td><td char="(">88 (18.1%)</td></tr><tr><td>Senior/expert lecturer</td><td char="(">175 (36.1%)</td></tr><tr><td>Lecturer</td><td char="(">80 (16.5%)</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td char="(">119 (24.5%)</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td char="(">485 (100%)</td></tr><tr><td>Faculty (%) <italic>n</italic></td><td>Architecture</td><td char="(">37 (7.6%)</td></tr><tr><td>Media and communication</td><td char="(">12 (2.5%)</td></tr><tr><td>Natural sciences</td><td char="(">93 (19.2%)</td></tr><tr><td>Health</td><td char="(">76 (15.7%)</td></tr><tr><td>Engineering</td><td char="(">98 (20.2%)</td></tr><tr><td>Social sciences and the humanities</td><td char="(">162 (33.4%)</td></tr><tr><td>Medicine</td><td char="(">7 (1.4%)</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Total</td><td char="(">485 (100%)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>It is evident from Table 1 presented above that the highest representation of respondents is from the Faculty of Social Sciences and the Humanities, who constitute 33.4% of the sample. Most of the respondents were men (61% men and 39% women), the mean age of the respondents was 55, 13% had passed retirement age (17 women and 48 men), and some 23% of the respondents held the rank of professor (27 women and 84 men).</p> <hd id="AN0180733072-10">Research output measures of academic faculty (segmented by gender, administrative functions,...</hd> <p>Although there are different ways to measure research output, with each way of doing this having advantages and disadvantages, in this study, the research outputs are measured in light of the H-Index, the citations number and the quantity and quality[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref51">3</reflink>] of the articles which has been published by the researcher.</p> <p>Accordingly, Table 2 presents research output values (citations/index-log)[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref52">4</reflink>] segmented by gender, academic rank, administrative role (such a university president, a rector, a faculty dean, a department head, a head of the master's degree program, etc.), faculty, and age (under retirement age, passed retirement age).</p> <p>Table 2. Research output measures segmented by gender, administrative functions and age (<emph>n</emph> = 485).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Gender</td></tr><tr><td>Men</td><td>Women</td></tr><tr><td>Administrative role</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>No</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>Age</td><td>Age</td><td>Age</td></tr><tr><td>Under 67</td><td>Over 67</td><td>Under 67</td><td>Over 67</td><td>Under 67</td><td>Over 67</td><td>Under 67</td><td>Over 67</td></tr><tr><td /><td><italic>n</italic> = 49</td><td><italic>n</italic> = 14</td><td><italic>n</italic> = 200</td><td><italic>n</italic> = 34</td><td><italic>n</italic> = 33</td><td><italic>n</italic> = 6</td><td><italic>n</italic> = 138</td><td><italic>n</italic> = 11</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><bold>Academic rank</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Full professor</td><td char=".">8.2%</td><td char=".">35.7%</td><td char=".">3.5%</td><td char=".">14.7%</td><td char=".">-</td><td char=".">16.7%</td><td char=".">0.7%</td><td char=".">-</td></tr><tr><td>Associate professor</td><td char=".">40.8%</td><td char=".">28.6%</td><td char=".">13.5%</td><td char=".">35.3%</td><td char=".">45.5%</td><td char=".">33.3%</td><td char=".">4.3%</td><td char=".">18.2%</td></tr><tr><td>Senior lecturer</td><td char=".">22.4%</td><td char=".">-</td><td>46%</td><td char=".">32.4%</td><td char=".">30.3%</td><td char=".">16.7%</td><td char=".">34.1%</td><td char=".">27.3%</td></tr><tr><td>Lecturer</td><td char=".">4.1%</td><td char=".">-</td><td char=".">19.5%</td><td char=".">-</td><td char=".">6.1%</td><td char=".">-</td><td char=".">26.8%</td><td char=".">-</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td char=".">4.5%</td><td char=".">35.7%</td><td char=".">17.5%</td><td char=".">17.6%</td><td char=".">18.2%</td><td char=".">33.3%</td><td char=".">34.1%</td><td char=".">54.5%</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Faculty</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Architecture</td><td char="." /><td char=".">7.1%</td><td char=".">12%</td><td char=".">5.9%</td><td>3%</td><td char=".">-</td><td char=".">5.8%</td><td char=".">9.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Communication</td><td char=".">10.2%</td><td char=".">7.1%</td><td char=".">1%</td><td char=".">-</td><td char=".">-</td><td char=".">-</td><td char=".">2.9%</td><td char=".">-</td></tr><tr><td>Natural sciences</td><td char=".">24.5%</td><td char=".">35.7%</td><td char=".">26%</td><td char=".">23.5%</td><td char=".">12.1%</td><td char=".">-</td><td char=".">7.2%</td><td char=".">18.2%</td></tr><tr><td>Health</td><td char=".">4.1%</td><td char=".">7.1%</td><td char=".">8%</td><td char=".">11.8%</td><td char=".">24.2%</td><td>50%</td><td char=".">27.5%</td><td char=".">36.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Engineering</td><td char=".">20.4%</td><td char=".">14.3%</td><td char=".">26%</td><td char=".">32.4%</td><td char=".">15.2%</td><td char=".">-</td><td>13%</td><td char=".">-</td></tr><tr><td>Social sciences and humanities</td><td char=".">40.8%</td><td char=".">21.4%</td><td char=".">26%</td><td char=".">23.5%</td><td char=".">45.5%</td><td>50%</td><td>42%</td><td char=".">27.3%</td></tr><tr><td>Medicine</td><td char="." /><td char=".">7.1%</td><td char=".">1%</td><td char=".">2.9%</td><td char=".">-</td><td char=".">-</td><td char=".">1.4%</td><td char=".">9.1%</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Research output (citations/index-log)</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Mean</td><td char="."><bold>0</bold>.<bold>39</bold></td><td char="."><bold>0</bold>.<bold>93</bold></td><td char=".">-0.06</td><td char="."><bold>0</bold>.<bold>85</bold></td><td char="."><bold>0</bold>.<bold>16</bold></td><td char=".">-0.21</td><td char=".">-0.41</td><td char=".">-0.44</td></tr><tr><td>Standard deviation</td><td char=".">0.99</td><td char=".">0.99</td><td char=".">0.91</td><td char=".">1.21</td><td char=".">1.10</td><td char=".">0.86</td><td char=".">0.77</td><td char=".">1.46</td></tr><tr><td>Minimum</td><td char=".">-2.49</td><td char=".">-0.91</td><td char=".">-2.22</td><td char=".">-1.38</td><td char=".">-2.42</td><td char=".">-1.11</td><td char=".">-2.19</td><td char=".">-2.66</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum</td><td char=".">2.38</td><td char=".">2.26</td><td char=".">2.73</td><td char=".">3.73</td><td char=".">2.34</td><td char=".">1.17</td><td char=".">1.94</td><td char=".">1.39</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>To examine the predicting variables of the dependent variable citation/index-log, a stepwise regression analysis was conducted. The predicting variables tested were: age, gender-male, academic rank-full professor, academic rank-associate professor, academic rank-senior lecturer, academic rank-lecturer, other academic rank, and senior academic administrator.</p> <p>The findings presented in Table 3 show that the full model explains approximately 23% of the variance in the dependent variable citation/index-log. The results also indicate that the most significant background variable found to be negatively associated with citation/index-log (when controlling for other variables) is the academic rank of lecturer. In other words, having the academic rank of lecturer predicts lower citation/index-log values.</p> <p>Table 3. Stepwise regression to predict citation/index-log according to background variables of research participants.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>B</td><td>β</td><td>t</td><td>F</td><td>R<sup>2</sup> ADJ</td><td>R<sup>2</sup> change</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><bold>First model</bold></td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td /><td>***<italic>F</italic><sub>(1,353) </sub>= 53.42</td><td char=".">0.13</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Intercept</td><td char=".">-0.09</td><td char="." /><td char=".">1.82</td><td /><td char="." /><td /></tr><tr><td>Full professor</td><td char=".">1.50</td><td char=".">0.36</td><td>***7.31</td><td /><td char="." /><td /></tr><tr><td><bold>Second model</bold></td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td /><td>***<italic>F</italic><sub>(2,352) </sub>= 41.33</td><td char=".">0.19</td><td>***0.06</td></tr><tr><td>Intercept</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char="." /><td>0.64</td><td /><td char="." /><td /></tr><tr><td>Full professor</td><td char=".">1.37</td><td char=".">0.33</td><td>***6.85</td><td /><td char="." /><td /></tr><tr><td>Lecturer</td><td char=".">-0.61</td><td char=".">-0.24</td><td>***5.05</td><td /><td char="." /><td /></tr><tr><td><bold>Third model</bold></td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td /><td>***<italic>F</italic><sub>(3,351) </sub>= 33.49</td><td char=".">0.22</td><td>***0.03</td></tr><tr><td>Intercept</td><td char=".">0.26</td><td char="." /><td>***3.22</td><td /><td char="." /><td /></tr><tr><td>Full professor</td><td char=".">1.15</td><td char=".">0.28</td><td>***5.63</td><td /><td char="." /><td /></tr><tr><td>Lecturer</td><td char=".">-0.83</td><td char=".">-0.33</td><td>***6.30</td><td /><td char="." /><td /></tr><tr><td>Senior lecturer</td><td char=".">-0.42</td><td char=".">0-.20</td><td>***3.82</td><td /><td char="." /><td /></tr><tr><td><bold>Fourth model</bold></td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td /><td>***<italic>F</italic><sub>(4,350) </sub>= 28.01</td><td char=".">0.23</td><td>**0.02</td></tr><tr><td>Intercept</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char="." /><td>0.68</td><td /><td char="." /><td /></tr><tr><td>Full professor</td><td char=".">1.07</td><td char=".">0.26</td><td>***5.25</td><td /><td char="." /><td /></tr><tr><td>Lecturer</td><td char=".">-0.79</td><td char=".">-0.32</td><td>***6.04</td><td /><td char="." /><td /></tr><tr><td>Senior lecturer</td><td char=".">-0.42</td><td char=".">-0.20</td><td>***3.86</td><td /><td char="." /><td /></tr><tr><td>gender-male</td><td char=".">0.30</td><td char=".">0.144</td><td>**3.04</td><td /><td char="." /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 ***<emph>p</emph> <.001, **<emph>p</emph> <.01, *<emph>p</emph> <.05.</p> <p>The variable found to be positively associated with citation/index-log, when controlling for other variables, is the academic rank of full professor. This means having the rank of full professor predicts higher citation/index-log values. The rank of senior lecturer was also found to predict, although to a lesser extent, a decrease in citation/index-log values, while the variable gender-male was found to predict an increase in citation/index-log, albeit to a lesser degree than the variable academic rank of full professor. Table 3 summarizes the model values.</p> <p>The data in the table above show that the variable that is positively associated with research output (citations/index-log), when controlling for the other variables, is academic rank of associate professor. Namely, the rank of associate professor predicted high values of citations/index-log, while the male gender variable was also found to predict an increase in citations/index-log, although less than the academic rank of associate professor. Moreover, the rank of senior lecturer was found to predict a decline in the variable of citations/index-log (although less compared to the academic rank). In summary, of all the academic ranks examined, the rank of full professor was the only one found to predict an increase in the values of the citation/index-log variable. This highlights the significant positive association between being a full professor and research impact as measured by citations.</p> <p>Furthermore, the research findings attest to differences in the research output between faculty after retirement age (aged 67 or older) and younger faculty (younger than 67), where the highest research output was found among the following groups: men with an administrative role who had passed retirement age. That is, faculty members who served in a management position in the department, faculty or academic institution before their retirement had the highest research output score (0.93), then men with no academic role who had passed retirement age (0.85), then men with an administrative role who were below the retirement age (0.39), and finally women with a management role who were below the retirement age (0.16). Therefore, the research findings indicate that the highest scholarly output was found among male faculty who had passed retirement age (whether holding or not holding a management role). In order to emphasize the differences in research output found between faculty after retirement age and younger, a <emph>t</emph>-test was conducted for the independent variables. A summary of the test findings is presented in Table 4.</p> <p>Table 4. T-test for independent variables to examine differences in the mean research output (citations/index-log) between retired faculty and other faculty.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Mean (SD)</td><td><italic>t</italic></td><td>Cohen's <italic>d</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><bold>Age of faculty</bold></td><td /><td>***<italic>t</italic><sub>(54.05) </sub>= 3.30</td><td char=".">0.98</td></tr><tr><td>67 or older (<italic>n</italic> = 47)</td><td>(1.25) <bold>0.54</bold></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Younger than 67 (<italic>n</italic> = 308)</td><td>(0.93) 0.08-</td><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 *<emph>p</emph> <.05, ***<emph>p</emph> <.01, ***<emph>p</emph> <.001.</p> <p>The data in the table above indicate that the mean research output of faculty after retirement age (<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref53">67</reflink>) was significantly higher than that of younger faculty who are under the retirement age (0.54 versus −0.08, respectively).</p> <hd id="AN0180733072-11">Teaching evaluation measures of academic faculty (segmented by gender, administrative functio...</hd> <p>Table 5 presents the mean teaching evaluation scores of academic faculty, segmented by gender, academic rank, administrative role, and age (under retirement age, over retirement age).</p> <p>Table 5. Teaching evaluation measures, segmented by gender, administrative functions and age (<emph>n </emph>= 485).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>Gender</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>Male</td><td /><td /><td /><td>Female</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>Administrative role</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Yes</td><td /><td>No</td><td /><td>Yes</td><td /><td>No</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Age</td><td /><td>Age</td><td /><td>Age</td><td /><td>Age</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Under 67</td><td>Over 67</td><td /><td>Under 67</td><td>Over 67</td><td /><td>Under 67</td><td>Over 67</td><td /><td>Under 67</td><td>Over 67</td></tr><tr><td /><td>n=49</td><td>n=14</td><td /><td>n=200</td><td>n=34</td><td /><td>n=33</td><td>n=6</td><td /><td>n=138</td><td>n=11</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><bold>Academic rank</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Full professor</td><td char=".">8.2%</td><td char=".">35.7%</td><td /><td char=".">3.5%</td><td char=".">14.7%</td><td /><td char=".">-</td><td char=".">16.7%</td><td /><td char=".">0.7%</td><td char=".">-</td></tr><tr><td>Associate professor</td><td char=".">40.8%</td><td char=".">28.6%</td><td /><td char=".">13.5%</td><td char=".">35.3%</td><td /><td char=".">45.5%</td><td char=".">33.3%</td><td /><td char=".">4.3%</td><td char=".">18.2%</td></tr><tr><td>Senior lecturer</td><td char=".">22.4%</td><td char=".">-</td><td /><td char=".">46%</td><td char=".">32.4%</td><td /><td char=".">30.3%</td><td char=".">16.7%</td><td /><td char=".">34.1%</td><td char=".">27.3%</td></tr><tr><td>Lecturer</td><td char=".">4.1%</td><td char=".">-</td><td /><td char=".">19.5%</td><td char=".">-</td><td /><td char=".">6.1%</td><td char=".">-</td><td /><td char=".">26.8%</td><td char=".">-</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td char=".">24.5%</td><td char=".">35.7%</td><td /><td char=".">17.5%</td><td char=".">17.6%</td><td /><td char=".">18.2%</td><td char=".">33.3%</td><td /><td char=".">34.1%</td><td char=".">54.5%</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><bold>Semester I evaluations</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Mean</td><td char=".">3.90</td><td char=".">3.96</td><td /><td char=".">3.85</td><td char=".">3.66</td><td /><td char="."><bold>4.04</bold></td><td char="."><bold>3.97</bold></td><td /><td char="."><bold>3.97</bold></td><td char=".">3.64</td></tr><tr><td>Standard deviation</td><td char=".">0.44</td><td char=".">0.78</td><td /><td char=".">0.49</td><td char=".">0.65</td><td /><td char=".">0.40</td><td char=".">0.26</td><td /><td char=".">0.42</td><td char=".">0.44</td></tr><tr><td>Minimum</td><td char=".">2.53</td><td char=".">2.24</td><td /><td char=".">1.74</td><td char=".">2.39</td><td /><td char=".">2.84</td><td char=".">3.56</td><td /><td char=".">2.41</td><td char=".">2.79</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum</td><td char=".">4.43</td><td char=".">5.00</td><td /><td char=".">5.00</td><td char=".">4.91</td><td /><td char=".">4.68</td><td char=".">4.26</td><td /><td char=".">4.79</td><td char=".">4.15</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Semester II evaluations</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Mean</td><td char=".">4.21</td><td char=".">3.97</td><td /><td char=".">4.09</td><td char=".">3.74</td><td /><td char=".">4.21</td><td char=".">3.89</td><td /><td char=".">4.25</td><td char=".">3.62</td></tr><tr><td>Standard deviation</td><td char=".">0.42</td><td char=".">0.58</td><td /><td char=".">0.60</td><td char=".">0.73</td><td /><td char=".">0.51</td><td char=".">0.70</td><td /><td char=".">0.48</td><td char=".">0.58</td></tr><tr><td>Minimum</td><td char=".">2.68</td><td char=".">2.85</td><td /><td char=".">1.75</td><td char=".">2.28</td><td /><td char=".">2.82</td><td char=".">3.19</td><td /><td char=".">2.36</td><td char=".">2.65</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum</td><td char=".">4.76</td><td char=".">4.83</td><td /><td char=".">5.00</td><td char=".">5.00</td><td /><td char=".">5.00</td><td char=".">5.00</td><td /><td char=".">5.00</td><td char=".">4.47</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>A descriptive examination of the teaching evaluation scores presented in Table 5 reveals some tentative trends in satisfaction with teaching across faculty demographics. Female faculty with administrative roles under retirement age appear to have received the highest mean evaluation scores in Semester 1 (4.04), followed closely by women over retirement age (3.97) and women without administrative roles under retirement age (3.97).</p> <p>However, it is important to interpret these descriptive patterns with caution. This analysis does not test for statistically significant differences between groups. The table is intended to provide an initial high-level summary of where higher evaluation scores tended to concentrate across demographics. It cannot support definitive claims that certain groups outperformed others.</p> <p>When examining patterns by retirement age, some subtle tendencies emerge within gender and role groups among both administrative and non-administrative roles.[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref54">5</reflink>]</p> <p>Thus, it can be said that this descriptive analysis suggests tentative trends where faculty under retirement age, especially women, tended to receive somewhat higher evaluation scores on average compared to older faculty. However, the differences appear relatively small. Therefore, rigorous statistical testing is necessary to determine if patterns in this preliminary data reflect significant differences in teaching evaluation performance between demographic groups.</p> <p>In addition, when viewing scores more holistically across the full academic year, the data indicates a gentle trend where younger faculty received slightly higher evaluation ratings on average compared to faculty over retirement age. However, this trend is delicate, with minimal differences in mean scores between age groups each semester.[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref55">6</reflink>] In summary, the data reveals a tentative pattern that is not definitive, where younger staff evaluation scores are gently elevated compared to older staff when scores are combined across both semesters.</p> <hd id="AN0180733072-12">Conclusions</hd> <p>The research findings raise the public policy issue of retirement age in the academic world. Beyond the question of raising the retirement age in Israel's labor market in general, discussed as stated by previous studies (mentioned in the introduction), the current study focuses on the validity and efficacy of the public policy that limits the employment age of academic faculty irrespective of their capabilities, experience, contribution to the research world and to academic institutions, as well as their cognitive ability. Previous studies conducted (both in Israel and elsewhere) examined, as stated, the subjective views of academic faculty (both older and younger) on this issue, and their findings indicated that as a rule faculty are in favor of their continued academic activity beyond the legal retirement age. Faculty asked about this issue in those studies estimated that their continued activity beyond the current legal retirement age has considerable meaning and impact in the various areas of research and teaching, as well as a conspicuous contribution to the scientific world, the academic institution, and the young researchers for whom they serve as role models and counselors.</p> <p>Therefore, retirement age in academia should rise in the future commensurate with its gradual increase in the overall global labor market in recent years, perhaps even more so than in other industries. At the same time, in order to reach conclusions on this issue the current study seeks to objectively examine the output of academic faculty who have reached retirement age and to measure their research output (both in absolute terms and relative to younger faculty members).</p> <p>As stated, the research findings list the research output and teaching evaluation scores of 485 academic faculty members from Ariel University (men and women from different countries of origin, with different academic ranks and from different faculties), as detailed in Table 1. The research findings indicate a positive association between the research output of the academic faculty members and the academic rank of full professor, irrespective of age. Namely, the rank of associate professor predicts high values of citation/index-log, irrespective of age. Moreover, the research findings indicating differences in research output between faculty after retirement age (age 67 and older) and other faculty (below 67) attest to higher research output among faculty above retirement age than among those below retirement age (as shown in Tables 2, 3, and 4). Then again, examining the mean teaching evaluations of faculty shows that (male and female) faculty above retirement age usually[<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref56">7</reflink>] received lower mean teaching evaluation scores than did younger faculty members.</p> <p>Hence, it can be said that reaching the legal retirement age does not point to a decline in the research capabilities of faculty, which could have been assumed to derive from their advanced age. The opposite is true: in fact, the research output measures of these faculty members were found, as stated, to be higher than those of younger faculty members who had not yet reached retirement age. At the same time, the findings attest as stated to lower teaching capabilities of older faculty (after retirement age) than of younger faculty members (below retirement age), possibly associated with mental burnout or physical limitations that increase with the years and with age (respectively).</p> <p>Placing these two main findings side by side does not lead to the conclusion that reaching retirement age is necessarily detrimental to the professional output of faculty members and does not justify their mandatory retirement from the academic institution when reaching the age determined by law. On the contrary, even if the teaching ability of older faculty members might be affected over the years (as shown by the research findings), their contribution to the academic institution is mostly generated by their scholarly output (which makes the academic institution eligible for funding), the positive impact on the image of the institution (due to their many years of participation in international conferences, many citations of their research, and others), and their not inconsiderable contribution deriving from their experience, manifested in the support and guidance of younger faculty (which helps the latter increase their research output). Therefore, it can be concluded that faculty members who have reached retirement age are an asset to their academic institution rather than a burden. The continued activity of veteran faculty members makes a great contribution to the institution, manifested in considerable research output, guiding research students and young researchers, and improving the exposure and local and international image of the employing academic institution. Thus, these findings undermine the justification of the public policy implemented in Israel in this area and call for its reexamination.</p> <p>Therefore, policymakers must recognize the strengths of veteran academic faculty members, deriving from their accumulated experience, and on the other hand recognize their weaknesses stemming from their advancing age, and adjust the nature of the academic position of these faculty members accordingly. Hence, it is suggested that the teaching hours of faculty members who have reached retirement age be cut or canceled completely and their position (whether full- or part-time) shall focus on other contents where they have a distinct advantage. These faculty members, who over the years accumulated knowledge and proficiencies in teaching, research, managing departments and faculties, and managing various projects, can engage in the direction and guidance of young faculty taking their initial steps in the academic world, academic-management counseling of inexperienced department heads, guidance of students for advanced degrees, and others. In this way, the academic institution will enjoy the advantages and strengths of the veteran faculty, and these faculty members in turn will enjoy a 'bridge employment' that grants them economic, image-related, and mental value.</p> <p>Moreover, the members of the academic staff who have reached retirement age may also gain benefits from continuing their employment in the workplace. This claim supports the assumption that those who choose a bridge employment after can more easily adapt to life without paid work as the main activity (Wang et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref57">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>In addition, working after retirement in a high-quality job (such as an academic career) may be conceptually different aspects compared to working after retirement in a low-quality job (Dingemans and Henkens [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref58">18</reflink>]). This claim is based on the assumption that the academic position is often characterized by a high level of control and is devoid of high physical and mental work demands, and therefore continuing employment in such a position in old age will benefit to its employee. This conclusion is based on previous studies that stated that the majority of retirees who choose bridge employment are those who participate in jobs with low stress, with low physical and mental work demands, and high levels of work control, while workers in jobs with a high level of stress and a low degree of control who choose bridge employment after retirement age did so usually out of financial necessity) Wahrendorf et al. [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref59">45</reflink>]; Dingemans and Henkens [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref60">19</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180733072-13">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0180733072-14"> <title> Notes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Some UK universities (e.g. Oxford and Cambridge) do operate Employer Justified Retirement Ages.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref43" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Irit Avisar, May 22, 2019. There is no alternative: The retirement age for women must be raised.https://<ulink href="http://www.yediot.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-5513714,00.html">www.yediot.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-5513714,00.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref37" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> According to the JCR ranking website.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref38" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> The research output measure was carefully constructed to account for differences in seniority and age. Rather than using raw citation counts, which could favor more senior researchers, we used a normalized index that accounts for the average citations in each field. This allows us to compare research productivity across career stages and fields. Specifically, we first normalized the citation count and h-index for each researcher by subtracting the mean for their field. This centres the measures around 0. We then combined the normalized citation count and h-index into a single measure using principal component analysis. Finally, we took the log base 10 to normalize the distribution. This results in a research output score that reflects one's productivity relative to others in their field, rather than absolute citation counts that naturally accumulate over a career. The normalization helps prevent seniority and age from artificially inflating the score.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref18" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Female faculty under retirement age scored slightly higher than older female faculty in both semesters. For males without administrative duties, younger faculty also rated higher than older faculty consistently across semesters. However, for males with administrative roles, the age-based pattern differed by semester. Younger males received higher scores in Semester 2, but older males rated higher in Semester 1. This mixed result highlights the need for statistical testing before concluding there are meaningful differences between younger and older male administrators.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref5" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> In Semester 1, older faculty scored marginally higher on average, while in Semester 2, younger faculty were slightly higher. The differences are subtle, suggesting a modest tendency for younger faculty to achieve mildly better teaching evaluations across the year, but with substantial overlap between age groups. This should not be overstated, as the gap is minimal.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref33" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> An exception were the teaching evaluation scores given in Semester I to (male) faculty members. In this semester it was precisely faculty above retirement age who received higher mean teaching evaluation scores than those below retirement age (although the difference was minimal: 3.96 versus 3.90).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0180733072-15"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Alcover, C. M. 2017. " Bridge employment: Transitions from career employment to retirement and beyond." In The Palgrave handbook of age diversity and work, edited by Emma Parry and Jean McCarthy, 225 – 62. London : Palgrave Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ashenfelter, O., and D. Card. 2002. " Did the elimination of mandatory retirement affect faculty retirement? " American Economic Review 92 (4): 957 – 80. https://doi.org/10.1257/00028280260344542.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Axelrad, H. 2018. " Early retirement and late retirement: Comparative analysis of 20 European countries." International Journal of Sociology 48 (3): 231 – 50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207659.2018.1483004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baldwin, R. G., A. A. Belin, and B. H. Say. 2018. " Why reinvent academic retirement? " New Directions for Higher Education 2018 (182): 9 – 16. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20276.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beehr, T. A., and M. M. Bennett. 2015. " Working after retirement: Features of bridge employment and research directions." Work, Aging and Retirement 1 (1): 112 – 28. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/wau007.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Braw, Y., E. Cohen, Y. Brender-Ilan, and I. Sohlberg. 2018. " A call for establishing a public policy for mitigating the effects of dementia on modern workplaces." Economics & Sociology 11 (1): 172 – 88. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2018/11-1/11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cahill, K. E., M. D. Giandrea, and J. F. Quinn. 2013. " Bridge employment." In Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of retirement, edited by M. Wang, 293 – 310. Oxford : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref9" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Caspersen, C. J., G. D. Thomas, L. A. Boseman, G. L. Beckles, and A. L. Albright. 2012. " Aging, diabetes, and the public health system in the United States." American Journal of Public Health 102 (8): 1482 – 97. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300616.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref2" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Christensen, K., G. Doblhammer, R. Rau, and J. W. Vaupel. 2009. " Ageing populations: The challenges ahead." The Lancet 374 (9696): 1196 – 208. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61460-4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, E. 2018. " Public policy for regulating the interaction between labor market supply and higher education demand - Israel as a case study." International Journal of Higher Education 7 (6): 150 – 60. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v7n6p150.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, E. 2022. " The importance of public policy for regulating post-retirement employment in Israel." Israel Studies Review 37 (2): 58 – 81. https://doi.org/10.3167/isr.2022.370204.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, E., and Y. Benvenisti. 2020. " Public policy for supporting employed family caregivers of the elderly: the Israeli case." Israel Affairs 26 (3): 431 – 49. DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2020.1754590.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crow, G. 2021. " In search of role models of successful academic retirement." Contemporary Social Science 16 (5): 604 – 17. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2021.1983204.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Danson, M., and K. Gilmore. 2012. " Employability and flexible retirement: Variations in academia in an age of austerity." Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 43 (6): 1323 – 32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.06.005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davidovitch, N., and E. Eckhaus. 2019. " Advantages of employment after retirement–A content analysis approach. What is academic professional experience worth after retirement age? " World Journal of Education 9 (6): 65 – 73. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v9n6p65.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davidovitch, N., and E. Eckhaus. 2020. " Senior faculty opinions on the significance of retirement age–Employing natural language processing." Higher Education Studies 10 (2): 38 – 44. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v10n2p38.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis, M. A. 2003. " Factors related to bridge employment participation among private sector early retirees." Journal of Vocational Behavior 63 (1): 55 – 71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00016-7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dingemans, E., and K. Henkens. 2019. " Working after retirement and life satisfaction: Cross-national comparative research in Europe." Research on Aging 41 (7): 648 – 69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027519830610.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dingemans, E., and K. Henkens. 2020. " Job strain in working retirees in Europe: A latent class analysis." Ageing and Society 40 (9): 2040 – 60.. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X19000473.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eckhaus, E., and N. Davidovitch. 2020. " The changing of the guard in academia and academic research leadership–Employing natural language processing." International Education Studies 13 (8): 95 – 102.. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v13n8p95</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fasbender, U., J. Deller, M. Wang, and B. M. Wiernik. 2014. " Deciding whether to work after retirement: The role of the psychological experience of aging." Journal of Vocational Behavior 84 (3): 215 – 24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.01.006.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> French, E. 2005. " The effects of health, wealth, and wages on labour supply and retirement behavior." The Review of Economic Studies 72 (2): 395 – 427.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-937X.2005.00337.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garcia, P. R. J. M., R. K. Amarnani, P. Bordia, and S. L. D. Restubog. 2021. " When support is unwanted: The role of psychological contract type and perceived organizational support in predicting bridge employment intentions." Journal of Vocational Behavior 125 : 1 – 17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103525.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> George, R., and M. Maguire. 2021. " Academics 'staying on' post retirement age in English university departments of education: Opportunities, threats and employment policies." British Journal of Educational Studies 69 (4): 453 – 70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2020.1814951.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gobeski, K. T., and T. A. Beehr. 2009. " How retirees work: Predictors of different types of bridge employment." Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior 30 (3): 401 – 25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Griffin, B., and B. Hesketh. 2008. " Post-retirement work: The individual determinants of paid and volunteer work." Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 81 (1): 101 – 21. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317907X202518.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harper, S. 2014. " Economic and social implications of aging societies." Science 346 (6209): 587 – 91. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1254405</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henkens, K., and H. Solinge. 2013. " Returning to work after retirement: Who, what and why? " SSRN Electronic Journal.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kerr, G., and M. Armstrong-Stassen. 2011. " The bridge to retirement: Older workers' engagement in post-career entrepreneurship and wage-and-salary employment." The Journal of Entrepreneurship 20 (1): 55 – 76. https://doi.org/10.1177/097135571002000103.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, S., and D. C. Feldman. 2000. " Working in retirement: The antecedents of bridge employment and its consequences for quality of life in retirement." Academy of Management Journal 43 (6): 1195 – 210. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556345</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Larson, R. C., and M. Gomez Diaz. 2012. " Nonfixed retirement age for university professors: modeling its effects on new faculty hires." Service Science 4 (1): 69 – 78. https://doi.org/10.1287/serv.1120.0006.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin, M. H., M. Y. Chou, C. K. Liang, L. N. Peng, and L. K. Chen. 2010. " Population aging and its impacts: Strategies of the health-care system in Taipei." Ageing Research Reviews 9 : S23 – S27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2010.07.004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mazumdar, B., A. M. Warren, and T. C. Brown. 2021. " Bridge employment: Understanding the expectations and experiences of bridge employees." Human Resource Management Journal 31 (2): 575 – 91. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12323.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pengcharoen, C., and K. S. Shultz. 2010. " The influences on bridge employment decisions." International Journal of Manpower 31 (3): 322 – 36. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437721011050602.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pleau, R., and K. Shauman. 2013. " Trends and correlates of post-retirement employment, 1977–2009." Human Relations 66 (1): 113 – 41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712447003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reinhardt, U. E. 2003. " Does the aging of the population really drive the demand for health care? " Health Affairs 22 (6): 27 – 39. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.22.6.27.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silver, M. P. (2018). Retirement and its discontents: Why we won't stop working, even if we can. New York : Columbia University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Staudinger, U. M., R. Finkelstein, E. Calvo, and K. Sivaramakrishnan. 2016. " A global view on the effects of work on health in later life." The Gerontologist 56 (Suppl 2): S281 – S292. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnw032.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sugar, J. A., K. Pruitt, J. L. Anstee, and S. G. Harris. 2005. " Academic administrators and faculty retirement in a new era." Educational Gerontology 31 (5): 405 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601270590921672.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sullivan, S. E., and A. Al Ariss. 2019. " Employment after retirement: A review and framework for future research." Journal of Management 45 (1): 262 – 84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318810411.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tizard, B., and C. Owen. 2001. " Activities and attitudes of retired university staff." Oxford Review of Education 27 (2): 253 – 70. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980123355.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Dalen, H. P., K. Henkens, and J. Schippers. 2010. " Productivity of older workers: Perceptions of employers and employees." Population and Development Review 36 (2): 309 – 30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2010.00331.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Solinge, H. 2014. " Who opts for self-employment after retirement? A longitudinal study in the Netherlands." European Journal of Ageing 11 (3): 261 – 72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-013-0303-7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Solinge, H., and K. Henkens. 2010. " Living longer, working longer? The impact of subjective life expectancy on retirement intentions and behaviour." The European Journal of Public Health 20 (1): 47 – 51. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckp118.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wahrendorf, M., B. Akinwale, R. Landy, K. Matthews, and D. Blane. 2017. " Who in Europe works beyond the state pension age and under which conditions? Results from SHARE." Journal of Population Ageing 10 (3): 269 – 85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12062-016-9160-4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, M., Adams, G., Beehr, T., Shultz, K., Baugh, S. G., & Sullivan, S. E. 2009. Maintaining focus, energy, and options over the life span, In edited by Gayle S. Baugh and Sherry E. Sullivan. Charlotte, North Carolina : Information Age Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, M., Y. Zhan, S. Liu, and K. S. Shultz. 2008. " Antecedents of bridge employment: A longitudinal investigation." Journal of Applied Psychology 93 (4): 818 – 830. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.818.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xie, J. S., and M. J. Ali. 2023. " Academic retirement: Changing paradigms from 'when' to 'how'." Seminars in ophthalmology 38 (6): 509 – 10. https://doi.org/10.1080/08820538.2023.2205286.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yamada, A., and M. Higo. 2011. " Institutional barriers to work beyond retirement in an aging Japan: Evidence from a recent employee survey." Contemporary Japan 23 (2): 157 – 86. https://doi.org/10.1515/cj.2011.009.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang, Z., E. C. Norton, and S. C. Stearns. 2003. " Longevity and health care expenditures: The real reasons older people spend more." The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 58 (1): S2 – S10. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/58.1.S2.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Erez Cohen and Nitza Davidovitch</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref60"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1447602
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Employment of Academic Faculty after Reaching Retirement Age: An Asset or a Burden? -- Ariel University as a Case Study
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Erez+Cohen%22">Erez Cohen</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6765-9825">0000-0002-6765-9825</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nitza+Davidovitch%22">Nitza Davidovitch</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7273-903X">0000-0001-7273-903X</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Studies+in+Higher+Education%22"><i>Studies in Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2024 49(11):2195-2207.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Retirement%22">Teacher Retirement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Older+Workers%22">Older Workers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+College+Relationship%22">Faculty College Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Evaluation%22">Faculty Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Publishing%22">Faculty Publishing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Effectiveness%22">Teacher Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Policy%22">Educational Policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Policy+Analysis%22">Policy Analysis</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Israel%22">Israel</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/03075079.2023.2293931
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0307-5079<br />1470-174X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study centers on public policy concerning the retirement age in Israeli academia. The purpose of this study is to analyze the justification for the existing policy on this issue that allows academic institutions to end the employment of faculty when reaching the legal retirement age. The research method is based on analysis of the research and teaching data for 485 senior faculty members at Ariel University in Israel, which constitutes a case study. The research findings show on one hand higher research output among faculty who have passed the retirement age versus those who have not reached retirement, and on the other lower mean teaching evaluation scores received by faculty above retirement age that those received by younger faculty. The research conclusions determine that reaching retirement age does not necessarily affect the professional output of faculty or justify their removal from the academic institution. Even if the teaching capabilities of older faculty members are negatively affected over the years, their contribution to the academic institution is mostly influenced by their scholarly output, positive impact on the institution's image, and not inconsiderable contribution to it, deriving from their considerable experience that is utilized for supporting and directing younger faculty. Therefore, a possible conclusion is that faculty members who have reached retirement age constitute an asset rather than a burden for the academic institution. Hence, the findings question the justifications for the public policy implemented in Israel in this area and call for its reexamination.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1447602
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1447602
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/03075079.2023.2293931
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 2195
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Retirement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Older Workers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty College Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Publishing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Policy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Policy Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Israel
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Employment of Academic Faculty after Reaching Retirement Age: An Asset or a Burden? -- Ariel University as a Case Study
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Erez Cohen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nitza Davidovitch
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0307-5079
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1470-174X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 49
            – Type: issue
              Value: 11
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Studies in Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1