Integration of Immigrant Scientists in Israeli Academia. Integration of Immigrant Scientists in Israeli Academia

1 Integration of Immigrant Scientists in Israeli Academia Dr. Nitza Davidovich 1, Prof. Zila Sinuany-Stern 2, Prof. Dan Soen 3 1 Ari'el University Centre, Ari'el Israel; d.nitza@ariel.ac.il ; 2 Ari'el University Centre; Ben Gurion University, Israel; szila@ariel.ac.il ; 3 Ariel University Centre; Graduate School, Kibbutzim School of Education, Tel-Aviv; soen@macam. ac.il Integration of Immigrant Scientists in Israeli Academia Abstract This case study is the first to compare between achievement measures of new immigrant and native Israeli senior academic faculty. It is based on the analysis of performance records of 206 senior faculty members from the Ariel University Center of Samaria, out of whom 77 were born overseas. The study analyzes staff who received financial rewards for excellence for the three years 2006-2008, based on their activities, as measured by several criteria: excellence in research, teaching, academic administration, and contributions to the community. In addition, links between faculty achievements on the one hand and personal traits (gender, age, seniority) and characteristics of their academic work (rank, tenure, and representation on senate committees) on the other were examined as well. On the whole, the study revealed that a larger percentage of immigrant faculty members vs. native Israelis scored on excellence criteria. A discriminatediscriminatediscriminate analysis was performed in order to examine to what degree scoring on various excellence criteria distinguishes between immigrants and native Israelis faculty. No differences were found in general. All in all, the research reveals that immigrant scientists have become well integrated in the analyzed institution. Introduction The concept of transnationalism, which is described as an integral part of the globalization process, is lately becoming rather popular in social as well as political sciences (Remennick, 2007; Faist, 2000; Portes et al., 1999). Originally coined to describe flows of capital and labor across national borders in the second half of the 20 th century, it was later applied to the study of migrations as well as ethnic Diasporas. Thus, the lens of transnationalism became very useful for the exploration of issues like immigrant economic and social integration, identity and cultural retention. Scholars now recognize the split of

2 economic, social and political loyalties among migrants, as well as the gradual attenuation of loyalty to the nation-state as such (Remennick, 2007; Glick Schiller et al., 1995; Guarnizo & Smith, 1998). Current writings on transnationalism are concerned equally with long-distance economic activities, financial flows across the borders and exploration of socio-cultural dimensions and immigrants' assimilation and identity (Remennick, 2007 a ; Alba & Nee, 1997). Most recent studies dealing with transnationalism focused on emigrants moving from third world countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America to the West (Faist, 2000; Portes et al., 1999; Smith & Guarnizo, 1998). This paper deals with another stream of migrations: those from ex-socialist East European countries to the West. Immigrant absorption has been one of Israel s major aims since the establishment of the State of Israel. The goals of the Ministry of Immigration Absorption (MOIA) in regards to scientists' absorption as stated are: To ensure, to the greatest degree possible, that the scientific potential embodied in immigration is channeled appropriately, facilitating proper personal absorption of scientists, in order to increase Israeli scientific research and technological capabilities" (MOIA website). For this purpose, the ministry operates activities and programs aimed at assisting scientists and research and development personnel. Immigrant scientists (holding post-graduate degrees and experienced in the field of research and development) are eligible for employment advice and aid for locating jobs in research and/or development in Israeli academia, industry, research institutes, and hospitals. Steps taken by the MOIA are: The Center for Absorption in Science at the MOIA identifies needs and refers scientists to potential employers in the public and private sector, according to requirements. In order to encourage their absorption in Israeli research and development, the Center for Absorption in Science helps by funding part of the immigrants wages for a period of two to four years and provides scholarships for research students (immigrants and returning residents) who have been accepted for doctorate studies at Israeli universities. Between the years 1989-1999 more than 14,000 scientists (!) immigrated to Israel. More than 10,000 of them found jobs in their fields of expertise. Close to 8,900 were helped by the MOIA (MOIA, 2000). More recently, each year approximately 150 immigrant scientists arrive in Israel from overseas, and the best of these become integrated in research and

3 development in academia and at public and private research institutes. The Kamea Program for the absorption of immigrant scientists is aimed at providing a response to the difficulties of immigrant scientists manifested in independent endeavors to become integrated as researchers in these institutions. The program embraced 472 immigrant scientists in 2005 (Barada, 2006). They were spread in research teams in all Israeli fields of research and development. The assumption is that immigrant scientists are Israel s future intellectual reserve and a national and strategic asset. Israel would experience a significant decrease in its research levels were it not for their assimilation in research and development. The State must cultivate them constantly as an immediate response to Israeli brain drain. The Kamea Program guarantees the scientists salary for an initial period of three years. In 2005 about 70,000,000 NS were earmarked for that purpose (Barada, 2006). Over the past seven years, the Shomron and the Rift Valley Regional Research & Development Center (based at Ari'el University Center [AUC]) have employed over twenty immigrant scientists each year with the assistance of the MOIA and its research funds. On top of that, immigrant scientists are integrated in the AUC and employed in research and teaching, accompanied and guided by both native Israeli and veteran immigrant scientists. In addition, they study at the occupational Hebrew school operating at the center, which is also funded by the MOIA. Their studies focus on writing research proposals and lecturing to students. Thanks to the professional assistance and supportive atmosphere, some of these immigrant scientists are now employed as part of the regular staff. Government plans for cancellation of programs for the absorption of immigrant scientists in research and development at research institutes were revealed on August 2, 2007. This is the basis for the present study, the first case study of its kind, which considers achievements of new immigrant academic faculty at a university-level academic institution as assessed by quality measures based on the traditional roles of universities. The study examines the achievements of faculty at an Israeli academic institution, based on personal and professional characteristics. The researchers point of departure is that these qualitative measures of academic faculty have significance and influence for the issues studied. Immigration to Israel The State of Israel was established on May 15, 1948, a historical event which occurred following two thousand years of Jewish exile and persecution in the Diaspora. The establishment of the state was accompanied by the signing of the Scroll of Independence, which declared that the State of Israel will be open to Jewish immigration and the

4 ingathering of exiles (in Horev, 2006). This statement received its legal authority two years later in the Law of Return, which explicitly stated that all Jews are entitled to immigrate to Israel (Law of Return, 1950). This legal act transformed the Land of Israel into a world center of Jewish immigration. The State of Israel was established on a unique ethno-national foundation, seeking to base its existence on waves of external immigration which form an important demographic basis of the Jewish existence in Israel (Sever, 2001). At the time the state was established the Jewish population numbered approximately 600 thousand; today, six decades later, the Jewish population numbers 6 million, of whom 30% were born overseas (CBS, 2008, 59). 75% of the Jewish population in Israel is either immigrants or 1 st generation Israelis (ibid.). Israel is a country of immigrants, and from the moment it was established it had to cope with large rates of immigration and the challenges involved in absorbing immigrants. Despite its extensive experience with the absorption of immigrants, it faced a significant new economic, social, and cultural challenge in the late 80s and early 90s. The large wave of immigration from the former Soviet Union (FSU) unique characteristics In 1989 the Soviet Union opened its gates to citizens who wished to leave the country. When the Iron Curtain fell, it was finally possible to leave the country legally after many decades of restricted movement. This point symbolized the beginning of the second wave of immigration from the FSU (the first wave was in the 70s), which became one of the largest mass immigration movements in human history (Gandal, Hanson & Slaughter, 2004). An estimated 1.6 million of former Soviet citizens of Jewish ancestry left the disintegrating former USSR after 1987, drastically depleting their aging Jewish communities left behind. They constituted a huge fountain of human capital. Jews were the most educated minority group among all FSU nations. Over 60% had tertiary education. Most held professional or white collar occupations (Remmenick, 2007 a ; Tolts, 2004). Over 60% of these emigrants moved to Israel; 40% scattered in other Western countries. Over 720 thousand people entered the country over a period of three years, arousing many concerns of their effect on the structure of society (Kimmerling, 1998). The wave of immigration from the Soviet Union in 1989-1996 expanded the population of Israel by 20% (Geva-May, 2002). By 2008 the number of immigrants from the FSU reached one million, who all arrived in the second wave which began in 1989 and has continued in a more moderate form until the present day (Mey-Ami, 2008). The rate of immigrants from the FSU

5 among the Jewish population in Israel rose from 3.8% in 1990 to 21% in 2005. They are now the largest ethnic group to migrate to Israel (Raijman, 2009). By virtue of its size and timing the huge Russian migration wave of the 1990s had all the necessary conditions for the development of transnational tendencies (Remmenick, 2007). The massive wave of immigration from the FSU is unique in its size, composition, and extent. The new immigrants provided material for many studies examining various aspects of their absorption and acclimatization, including: linguistic (Menachem & Geist, 1999; Ben Raphael, Olstein & Gates, 1994; Chiswick & Repetto, 2000; Chiswick, 1998), cultural (Geva- May, 1998; Remennick, 2002), economic (Stier & Levanon, 2003), personal (Epstein & Kheimets, 2001), occupational (Ofer, Plug & Kasir, 1991; Nirel, 1999; Mesch & Czamanski, 1997; Chiswick, Lee & Miller, 2006), mental (Lerner, Kertes & Zilber, 2005), and social aspects (Darr & Rothschild, 2005; Soen, 2001; Cohen & Kirchmeyer, 1994) and other parameters aimed at evaluating the relationship between the immigrants and their target country. Aside from the numerical aspects of this wave of mass immigration, it had unique demographic and social characteristics of which some were new to Israel. This population was noticeable for its large proportion of elderly, which was much higher than that in the local population (19% aged 65+ as against 9.9%)! Moreover, its median age was 42.9, comparing with a median age of 28.5 for migrants coming to Israel from Western countries, and median age of 25.4 for migrants coming from Ethiopia (Raijman, 2009). However, of all immigrants at an age considered employable, 58% were academics, compared to 25% among Israel s existing population (Kimmerling, 1998). According to data from the MOIA, 10.9% of immigrants in 1989-1999 were engineers and architects, 2.3% were doctors, 2.2% were artists, 2.5% were nurses, and 4.8% were teachers. The total number of immigrants who arrived during this decade was 835,240 (MOIA, 2008a). During 2000-2008 the number of immigrants with scientific and academic occupations, in addition to those with liberal and technical professions, reached 31.8%. The total number of immigrants during these years was 268,287 (MOIA, 2008b). Despite these impressive data one Israeli scholar (Cohen, 2007) suggested that the emigrants who were younger, more educated and had better adjustment potential in the Western economies left the FSU for North America. Those who opted for Israel were their older counterparts. As a result of this self-selection Russian Jews in Israel did not fare nearly as well as their compatriots in North America. Moreover, in Israel they had to cope with a small and saturated skilled labor market (ibid.).

6 In the present study the research team sought to examine another less studied aspect focusing on a certain segment of this population the scientists. Surprisingly, despite the many programs designed in the past and the various proposals for integrating immigrant scientists in academic fields in the future, no extensive study was held on the subject. The lack of updated research on the integration and contribution of immigrant scientists to academia is detrimental to the development of future programs aimed at academic integration. In the absence of data it is difficult to estimate the degree to which the integration of immigrant scientists indeed contributes to Israeli higher education and to the scientists per se. In this study we have chosen to focus on the quality and degree of the absorption of immigrant versus native Israeli scientists at the Ari'el University Center in Samaria (AUC). The main purpose of the research is to assess the contribution of immigrant scientists in the fields of research, teaching, and contribution to the community. Immigrant Scientists The group of immigrants with scientific and academic occupations encompasses many scientists. The MOIA defined scientists as corresponding to one of three different categories: holders of Ph.D. or equivalent degrees who worked in the field of research and development for at least 3 of the 5 years before immigrating and published at least 3 scientific articles or acknowledged scientific studies or registered 3 patents; holders of M.Sc. or equivalent degrees who worked in the field of research and development for at least 4 of the 6 years before immigrating and published at least 3 scientific articles or registered 3 patents; holders of M.Sc. or equivalent degrees who worked in the field of research and development for at least 4 of the 6 years prior to immigrating but produced no articles or patents (see website of the MOIA). Between 1989-1991 more than 5,300 immigrant scientists fitting these criteria immigrated to Israel (MOIA, 2000). During these years the number of veteran Israeli scientists reached 8,000, including both researchers and academic faculty (Geva-May, 2000). During the period of immigration, scientists constituted 1.2% of all immigrants. The number of scientists who immigrated from the FSU in the last wave of immigration currently totals 15,700 (Mey-Ami, 2008). During 1989-1999 about 14,000 immigrants appealed to the Center for Absorption in Science (CAS) of the MOIA 1.4% of all immigrants who arrived in Israel during those years. A large percentage of CAS files 38% - were opened during 1991-1992 (MOIA, 2008b).

7 Thus, the population of immigrants from the Soviet Union was, in general, welleducated. In contrast to the typical pattern of immigration, these immigrants did not come to Israel in search of new socioeconomic opportunities (Bhagat & London, 1999); however they perceived their employment as a central aspect of their process of assimilation in Israel (Menachem & Gates, 1999). These traits raised the economic and social potential of immigration from the Soviet Union (Triponov & Weiner, 1995). The immigrants were acknowledged as human capital with a great potential of contributing to the Israeli economy (Darr & Rothschild, 2004; Ofer et al., 1991). Concurrent with the high expectations of these immigrants, local veteran segments of the population developed real concerns. They feared the inherent competition for employment opportunities, rising unemployment, and the utilization of national resources for immigration absorption at the expense of budgets intended for underprivileged and veteran populations (Kimmerling, 1998), as well as overburdening the Israeli welfare system (see also Smooha, 1998). The potential on the one hand and emerging concerns on the other led to a certain conflict within Israeli society. Some claimed that market forces should be allowed to take their course and that a natural balance and integration of the immigrants would occur spontaneously (Meirson, 1991). Others thought that Israel would not be able absorb the gargantuan workforce arriving at its doorstep without the help of artificial means (Ne eman, 1991; Darr & Rothschild, 2005). Yuval Ne eman, then Minister of Science and Energy, was an ardent supporter of this approach, and believed emphatically that market powers cannot be trusted to design systems for the absorption of immigrants Therefore I decided to initiate a tough endeavor (Ne eman, 1991, p. 16). This endeavor helped create various programs for the integration of scientists and academics within the Israeli labor market. In order to facilitate the integration of immigrants in industry, various programs were formed in response to their specific needs (Slavin, 1989). The Bashan Program for business entrepreneurship was developed and included the establishment of a reserve of ideas and inventions by immigrant engineers and scientists, providing them with assistance in promoting the ideas, establishing new companies, raising financial resources, and forming contacts with Israeli and foreign industry (see website of the Ministry of Culture, Science, and Sports). Another initiative was the establishment of technological hothouses, which provide funding, and management, as well as marketing assistance, to immigrant scientists (Darr & Rothschild, 2005). The purpose of the hothouses is to assimilate scientists and facilitate

8 implementation of technological initiatives (see website of the Ministry of Industry, Trade, and Employment). Technological projects remain at the hothouse for two years on average, receiving government loans or grants of up to 85% of their approved budget (ibid.). In the field of research and science several programs were developed and organized by the Center for Absorption in Science established in 1973. The center was founded as part of the MOIA and it is responsible for the integration of immigrant scientists, assistance in finding jobs, and funding the employment of scientists (Ashkenazi, 1997). The center operates three main programs aimed at facilitating the integration of scientists: a regular employment program also called the Shapira Scholarship, which is the basic program. Its purpose is to help scientists with their initial steps in the first three years (Mey-Ami, 2008). The second program is a continuance program called the Giladi Program, which assists scientists for two more years. The third program is a program for the absorption of immigrant scientists, Kamea, already mentioned above, and developed as a continuance of the Giladi program. As mentioned, it is intended to help outstanding immigrant scientists become integrated in the universities. This program assists scientists who have proven their ability to enhance the scientific excellence of their employer institutions. The program assimilates scientists in a special academic track which enables their continued employment, made possible by the establishment of a special fund covering their work through an external budget (Eyal, Giladi, Hupert & Fine, 1997). Thus, clearly many efforts have been made by the Israeli government to realize the significant human capital of the population of immigrants from the FSU. The question should now be raised Have these efforts been fruitful? Has the effort to facilitate the employment of immigrants been successful? Research on the employment of educated immigrants The recent wave of immigration to Israel, characterized by a high proportion of educated people, is unlike that of the 70s (Ne eman, 1994). Israeli society underwent many processes which reduced immigrants chances of becoming integrated, due to contemporary socioeconomic conditions which are less conducive to immigration (Epstein & Kheimets, 2001). The 90s were characterized by high rates of unemployment: 10% in the 90s versus 3.3% in the 70s. During these years no new university-level institutions were opened in Israel, versus the 60s and 70s in which 3 new universities were established, creating jobs for academics (Davidovich & Iram, 2006). The absorption policy changed from an institutional policy of absorption centers to a policy of termed direct absorption (Leshem, 1993), where immigrants were given the option of independently choosing their place of work and

9 residence (Epstein & Kheimets, 2001; Epstein, Kheimets & Oritzky, 2003). This policy tasked immigrants with the responsibility for locating adequate solutions for their needs (Leshem, 1993). At the same time, public consciousness no longer perceived the significance of absorbing immigration, and this was now considered a burden rather than an asset (ibid.). All these conditions made immigration much more difficult. It was almost necessary to initiate interventions in order to enable suitable absorption of immigrants. When studying the assimilation of immigrants in society, economic-employment integration is considered very significant (Menachem & Gates, 1999). The premise is that such integration is a major indicator of successful assimilation in the target society, as these aspects are central for determining individuals feelings of well-being (Stier & Levanon, 2003), belonging and self-esteem. For example, Menachem and Gates (ibid.) found that immigrants feelings of attachment and connection to Israel are determined to a great degree by their employment and personal achievements in the country. Some of the studies examining the integration of immigrants from the FSU in the workforce focused on their integration as a group, while others examined the integration of unique populations among the immigrants. Ofer et al. (1991) attempted to estimate the integration of immigrants from the FSU in the workforce theoretically via economic models, focusing on aspects related to retaining and changing occupations. Their findings indicated that in order for educated immigrants to become integrated in the Israeli economy it is necessary to radically open the economy to global markets. The researchers also estimated that the best-educated sector would be the most capable of retaining original occupations. Nirel (1998) examined the integration of immigrant physicians from the FSU in the workforce. Research findings indicate that most physicians who found jobs in their profession succeeded in becoming integrated in their field. The findings indicate improvements in physicians job stability, institutionalization of positions, professional status, wages, and perceived absorption, as a function of time. According to all these measures, physicians who arrived by June 1992 and were employed in their fields succeeded in becoming integrated in Israeli medical services. Naveh and King (1999) examined the integration of engineers in the Israeli workforce. Their findings show that although immigrant engineers have significant professional skills and professional experience, only one quarter of all immigrant scientists were employed in their profession, 9% were employed in related professions such as teaching (Geva-May, 1998), as technicians, or in programming, and 66% worked in other professions unsuited to

10 their level of education almost half were employed as professional laborers and one quarter as unprofessional laborers (ibid.). Stier and Levanon (2003) examined the employment of immigrants in jobs that are compatible with their skills. The researchers found that most of the immigrants had difficulty finding jobs. Four years after arriving in Israel most were employed in jobs that did not suit their skills. The lack of compatibility between skills and occupation was indeed detrimental to their prestige and social status, but not to their income, which rose despite the element of over-qualification. Darr and Rothschild (2005) examined the integration of well-educated immigrants in the Israeli scientific community. The researchers found that although the human capital of the immigrants was higher than that of veteran Israelis, this fact alone did not facilitate engineer and scientist assimilation in the Israeli scientific community. The researchers associated this finding with the fact that Israel is a small country and its professional communities are very congested and close-knit, a further obstacle encountered by immigrant engineers and scientists. In any case, while the new immigrants encountered many difficulties, research reveals that a few years after their arrival many of them experienced upward mobility commensurate with their human capital (Eckstein & Weiss, 2004; Semyonov et al., 2002). Geva-May (2000) examined five projects for the retraining of immigrant scientists as teachers. The research findings indicate that the scientists were successfully employed in the field of teaching and well-integrated as high school teachers. However most were employed in partial positions and had to work at several schools. The researcher stated that despite the occupational success of redirecting scientists to high school teaching, from a social aspect the venture was less successful most of the scientists did not form friendships with their colleagues, consistent with principals statements that many parents object to having their children taught by immigrant teachers, despite the fact that 95% of the principals submitted favorable evaluations of immigrant scientists contribution to the school. Integration of scientists in schools of higher education As already mentioned, over 15,000 scientists immigrated to Israel over the past two decades. 54% have doctorate degrees and 46% have master s degrees. 64% have degrees in scientific and technological professions, 23% in the life and medical sciences, 13% in the social sciences and the humanities (Epstein et al., 2003). Although many studies have examined the assimilation of the Russian population in Israel, the integration of scientists in academia has been almost completely neglected and little research exists on this subject. Two studies were

11 published by Toren, who explored the topic of scientists who immigrated in the 70s, and Shye et al., who examined the integration of scientists who arrived after 1989. Toren (1988) interviewed immigrant scientists who came to Israel during 1973-1975. The study included interviews with 207 immigrants from the Soviet Union and 91 scientists from the United States. Research findings include a report on reasons for immigration, factors affecting scientists satisfaction, and factors blocking their integration in the Israeli labor market (ibid.). Shye et al. (1996) examined the integration of immigrants in academia during 1992-1995. The study analyzed scientists who had been living in Israel for 3 years. Research findings show that 70% of scientists who had been working at universities in 1992 were still working there three years later. 13% of immigrant scientists who had been working at universities had moved to industry by 1995, 7% of scientists who had been in academia were unemployed by 1995, a finding interpreted by researchers as stemming from adjustment difficulties and advanced age. They further found (ibid.) that the proportion of scientists who published scientific articles doubled over this period as did the number of scientists who registered patents, findings credited by the researchers to government assistance afforded to immigrant scientists. Academic colleagues of immigrant scientists reported that the professional skills, integration, and contribution of the latter improved immeasurably over this period. However veteran colleagues estimated that immigrant scientists still had a relatively low chance of remaining at the universities. Despite the improvements and progress indicated by scientists and their colleagues, the researchers reported that experts and various functionaries feel that long-term integration in the industrial sector is preferable, while only a small part of outstanding immigrant scientists, capable of contributing to basic research at the universities, should remain there. The abovementioned studies illuminate the subject but do not reflect the current state of affairs as of 2009. Over a decade has passed since the study performed by Shye et al. Immigrant scientists are no longer defined as new immigrants and do not enjoy the benefits and aid programs provided to newly arrived immigrant scientists. Thus we must ask: What is the contribution of immigrant scientists to academic research and development? This question is necessitated by the enormous economic and social effort invested in their integration and follows a government decision received on August 2, 2007 to cancel financial support for the integration of immigrant scientists at research institutions in the field of research and development.

12 The purpose of this research is to examine the achievements of immigrant faculty members at the AUC, versus those of Israeli-born faculty members. Assessments of faculty activities and achievement-based rewards have become important topics over the past four decades (Hearn, 1999; Wadsworth, 1994; Altbach, 2000; Gillespie, Hilsen & Wadsworth, 2002; Kaiser & Neilson, 2002). Faculty members at academic institutions perform a wide range of activities, including: teaching, research, research publications, presentations at conferences, submitting research grants, academic administration, community service, etc. However academic freedom makes it difficult to supervise and report the achievements of faculty in the different areas (Manning & Romney, 1973). Several methods serve to assess the achievements of faculty members at academic institutions. The main tool for evaluating teaching is the student feedback questionnaire completed at the conclusion of each semester (Kreber, 2001; Davidovich & Sinuany-Stern, 2006; Davidovitch & Soen, 2006). In addition, faculty promotion is based on evaluating the achievements of faculty members as well. Since 1993 many Israeli institutions of higher education have been utilizing annual self-evaluations and evaluations by senior colleagues, based on excellence criteria in the fields of research and teaching. The results of these evaluations are manifested in faculty salaries, in the form of rewards for excellence. This study shall focus on the academic achievements of immigrant faculty members assimilated over the years at the AUC, versus those of native Israeli research faculty members. The main questions in this study relate to links between the contribution of faculty members, in their fields of activity, as evaluated by excellence criteria, and their country of origin. Faculty member eligibility for excellence rewards is based on teaching positions of at least 2/3 and contingent on reaching excellence scores in the top 60% (in actual fact, roughly 40% of the faculty received merit remuneration based on their excellence scores). This group is eligible to receive an annual supplement to their salaries based on achievements during the previous year. The supplement ranges from 7.5% (the lower 20% of the excellence scores) to 15% (the middle 20% of the excellence scores) to 20% (the top 20% of the excellence scores), according to the number of points accumulated. These are the rules of the PBC for colleges. At universities there is no limitation of the percentage of those who may receive excellence rewards; however the reward itself comprises a maximum of 13%. This study calculates average scores based on five measures of evaluation, of which the most dominant are: evaluation of all academic activities by senior colleagues, including deans (excellence scores), and student evaluations of teaching (feedback).

13 The research questions focus on the achievement measures of immigrant faculty members, in light of the support provided by the center and by the government what is their relative weight in the fields of research, teaching, and contribution to the community? What is their relative weight in the field of academic administration, particularly at recently established institutions which give faculty members the opportunity of taking part in founding and designing departments, and to what degree do immigrant faculty members take advantage of this opportunity to make an impact? To what degree, if at all, do achievement measures of faculty members in research and teaching depend on other personal variables such as gender, seniority, age, or on variables related to their academic occupation, such as type of faculty, rank, and tenure? Research Population This study is based on 206 academic faculty members from the AUC. 62.6% of the faculty members are native Israelis, 19.4% are immigrants from the FSU, 12.1% are US-born, and 5.8% came from other countries. In order to examine the correlation between faculty member origins and both background data and excellence criteria, the faculty members were divided into four groups of origin: Israel, FSU, USA, and others. The first part of the research examined the correlation between personal and professional data and faculty s country of origin. The second part of the research examined the links between faculty achievement measures and their country of origin. Findings Part A: Links between personal and professional data of faculty members and their country of origin The first part of the study examined, as stated, links between personal and professional data of academic faculty and their country of origin with the aim of analyzing differences between native Israeli and immigrant faculty members. Items analyzed are gender, age, seniority, departmental affiliation, employment status and rank. The analysis focused on the interaction between these items and the faculty country of origin. On the whole, it was found that there is no link between age, status and rank on one side, and country of origin on the other. Concurrently it was found that there is a link between gender, seniority and departmental affiliation on one side, and country of origin on the other. A1. Link between faculty gender and country of origin Table 1: Breakdown of faculty members and country of origin by gender

14 Origin Israel FSU USA Others Total Gender Prev. % Prev. % Prev. % Prev. % Prev. % Male 86 66.7 32 80 18 72 11 91.7 147 71.4 Female 43 33.3 8 20 7 28 1 8.3 59 28.6 Total 129 100 40 100 25 100 12 100 206 100 Table 1 and regression analysis indicate a significant link between gender and country of origin: Among native Israeli faculty members there areareareareareare a significantly higher percentage of women than among immigrant faculty members. On top of that, one should note that males dominate the faculty: 71.4% of faculty members are male and 28.6% female. This gender breakdown, it should be noted, does not compare favorablyfavorablyfavorablyfavorablyfavorablyfavorably with the national picture. According to the CBS, in 2006/7 females constituted 43.6% of the faculty of social sciences & humanities on the national level; they constituted 29.3% of the faculties of exact sciences, & natural and life sciences; they also constituted 37.6% of the faculties of health sciences and medicine (CBS, 2008, table 8.58). A2. Link between faculty members age and country of origin Chi-square test results indicate no statistically significant correlation between age and country of origin (χ² (9) =7.42, p>.05). 29.1% of faculty members are aged 35-44, 11.2% aged 45-49, 26.7% aged 50-59, and 33% are over 60. It should be noted that rate of faculty in the higher age-bracket is somewhat higher than in the Israeli higher education system. According to the CBS data, the percentage of faculty over 55 years old in the country as a whole was 30.8 in 2006/7 (CBS, 2008, Table 8.58). The percentage of faculty aged 60 and over in the AUC is 33. A3. Links between faculty members seniority and country of origin Table 2: Breakdown of faculty members by seniority at the academic institution and country of origin Origin Israel FSU USA Others Total Seniority Prev. % Prev. % Prev. % Prev. % Prev. % 3 years 21 16.3 9 22.5 4 16 1 8.3 35 17.0 or less 3-5 50 38.8 6 15.0 6 24 2 16.7 64 31.1

15 6-10 26 20.2 14 35.0 3 12 1 8.3 44 21.4 11+ 32 24.8 11 27.5 12 48 8 66.7 63 30.6 Total 129 100 40 100 25 100 12 100 206 100 Table 2 and chi-square test results indicate a statistically significant correlation between years of seniority at the academic institution and country of origin (χ² (9)=22.95, p>.01). Approximately one quarter of native Israeli and FSU-born faculty members have been working at the present place of employment for 11 years and more, while among US-born faculty members 48% have been associated with the institution for over 11 years. Among immigrants from other places 66.7% have over 11 years of seniority. A4. Link between faculty members departmental affiliation and country of origin Table 3: Breakdown of faculty members by faculty and country of origin Origin Israel FSU USA Others Total Faculty Prev. % Prev. % Prev. % Prev. % Prev. % Architecture 6 4.7 0 0 2 8 3 25 11 5.3 Health 11 8.5 0 0 1 4 0 0 12 5.8 sciences Engineering 27 20.9 15 37.5 4 16 0 0 46 22.3 Soc. 74 57.4 7 17.5 16 64 4 33.3 101 49.0 sciences & humanities Natural 11 8.5 18 45 2 8 5 41.7 36 17.5 sciences Total 129 100 40 100 25 100 12 100 206 100 Table 3 and chi-square test results indicate a statistically significant correlation between departmental affiliation and country of origin (χ² (12)=63.66, p>.001). 57.4% of native Israelis and 64% of US-born faculty members teach at the Faculty of Social Sciences and the Humanities, while only 17.5% of immigrants from the FSU teach at this faculty. In addition, 45% of immigrants from the FSU teach at the Faculty of Natural Sciences and 37.5% at the Faculty of Engineering. There are almost no immigrant instructors (from the FSU, USA, and other countries) at the Faculties of Architecture and Health Sciences. Their academic staff is primarily Israeli-born.

16 A5. Link between the employment status of faculty members and their country of origin Chi-square test results indicate no statistically significant correlation between tenure and country of origin (χ² (3) =2.69, p>.05). 68.4% of faculty members are untenured, versus 31.6% tenured. A6. Link between faculty members academic rank and country of origin Chi-square test results indicate no statistically significant correlation between academic rank and country of origin (χ² (9)=7.37, p>.05) at the AUC. 28.6% of faculty members hold the rank of professor, 38.8% are senior lecturers, 29.1% lecturers, and 3.4% teachers. According to the PBC (Planning & Budgeting Committee of the CHE) the breakdown of faculty according to rank in the country as a whole in 2005/6 was as follows: 52.9%- professors; 29.4%- senior lecturers; 17.6%- lecturers (PBC, 2008). In other words, the senior lecturers and lecturers carry much more weight in the AUC than in the country as a whole. Finally, in order to examine to what degree background variables distinguish between immigrants and native Israelis, a discriminant analysis was performed. No differences were found between native Israelis, immigrants from the FSU, immigrants from the USA and from other countries, however a borderline significant tendency towards differences between native Israelis and all immigrants was found. The variables checked for predicting distinction between Israelis and others were seniority, age, sex, academic rank, tenure (background variables), and scoring on excellence criteria (achievement variables). This series of variables was found to have a borderline significant contribution to the distinction between immigrant and Israeli-born faculty members (Wilks Lambda=0.94, df=6, Chi Square=12.22, p=.057). As mentioned above, three variables were found to contribute to the distinction between immigrants and native Israeli faculty: * Seniority (F(1,204)=4.30, p<.05): Immigrant faculty members have more seniority than native Israelis. Scoring on excellence criteria (F(1,204)=4.45, p<.05): A larger percentage of immigrant faculty members versus native Israelis scored on excellence criteria.

17 * Gender (F(1,204)=3.75, p=.054): Among native Israeli faculty members there is a higher percentage of women than among immigrant faculty members. * Departmental affiliation (χ² (12)=63.66, p>.001): Whereas the majority of the native Israelis and the faculty members born in the US are working in the Faculty of Social Sciences& Humanities, the great majority of those migrating from the FSU are affiliated to the faculties of natural sciences and engineering. Part B: Links between faculty members achievement measures and their country of origin The second part of the study examined relationships between faculty members achievement measures and their country of origin, with the aim of analyzing differences between native Israeli and immigrant faculty members. Academic faculty members perform a wide range of activities: teaching, research, research publications, presentations at conferences, submitting applications for research grants, academic administration, community services, etc. The results of their achievement evaluations are manifested in their salaries in the form of rewards for excellence. B1. Links between faculty members scores on excellence criteria and country of origin Table 4: Breakdown of faculty members by scores on excellence criteria and country of origin Israel FSU USA Others Total Scoring Prev. % Prev. % Prev. % Prev. % Prev. % Did not 86 66.7 20 50 16 64 4 33.3 126 61.2 score Scored 43 33.3 20 50 9 36 8 66.7 80 38.8 Total 129 100 40 100 25 100 12 100 206 100 Table 4 and chi-square test results indicate a significant correlation between scoring on excellence criteria and country of origin (χ² (2) =7.74, p<.05). 50% of faculty members from the FSU other countries scored on excellence criteria, as did 66.7% of faculty members from other overseas countries (except the US); however only 36% of faculty members who immigrated from the USA and 33.3% of native Israelis scored on excellence in the criteria of research, teaching, academic administration, and contribution to the community.

18 Given that the relative weight of most immigrant faculty was higher than that of native Israelis among those who scored on excellence criteria, the research team tried to find out whether there are any differences in points scored by those who distinguished themselves. A unidirectional analysis of variance was held in order to examine differences in scoring points on excellence criteria by country of origin. Results of the analysis of variance found no statistically significant differences in scoring by origin (F(3,76) =0.03, p>.05). Likewise, results of the analysis of variance found no statistically significant differences in scoring for research by origin (F(3,76)=0.13, p>.05). The same goes for scoring for teaching. Results of the analysis of variance found no statistically significant differences in scoring for teaching by origin (F(3,76) =1.22, p>.05). Table 5: Means and standard deviations of faculty scores for academic administration in 2007 by country of origin Origin Mean SD N Israel 3.63 3.56 43 FSU 2.25 2.34 20 USA 7.67 9.75 9 Others 7.50 3.93 8 Total 4.05 4.69 80 However, table 5 and results of the analysis of variance indicated statistically significant differences in scores for academic administration by origin (F(3,76) =4.56, p<.01). Faculty from the US and other countries received higher scores for academic administration than native Israeli faculty members and faculty from the FSU. Going back to scoring for excellence, results of the analysis of variance found differences in scoring for working exclusively for this institution by origin (F(3,64) =3.57, p<.05). Last but not least, results of the analysis of variance found no statistically significant differences in scoring for contribution to the community by origin (F(3,76)=1.10, p>.05). A discriminant analysis was also performed in order to examine to what degree scoring variables on excellence criteria distinguish between immigrants and native Israelis. No differences were found between native Israelis, immigrants from the FSU, USA, or other countries, and no differences were found between native Israelis and immigrants in general.

19 Summary and Discussion This study examined achievement measures of faculty members What is the relative weight of research, teaching, and contribution to the community, in proportion to their entire workload? What is the relative weight of academic administration, particularly at recentlyestablished institutions which afford faculty members an opportunity to take part in founding and designing departments, and to what degree do immigrant faculty members take advantage of this opportunity in order to make an impact? To what degree, if at all, do achievement measures of faculty members in the fields of research and teaching depend on other personal variables such as gender, seniority, age, or on variables related to their academic occupation, such as type of faculty, rank, and tenure? The study was based on 206 academic faculty members from the AUC. 62.6% were native Israelis, 19.4% immigrants from the FSU, 12.1% US-born, and 5.8% from other countries. As it turned out, about 37% of the faculty in AUC was immigrants. Close to 20% of the faculty emigrated from FSU countries. Numerically, the immigrants carried a large weight among the faculty. In order to examine links between faculty members country of origin and their background data and excellence criteria, they were divided into four groups of origin: Israel, FSU, USA, and others. The first part of the research examined links between personal and professional data and faculty members country of origin, and the second part of the research examined correlations between faculty achievement measures and their country of origin. The findings of the first part of the research show that no significant correlation was found between personal traits of gender and age and faculty members country of origin. However, a significant correlation was found between seniority at this institution and origin. Approximately one quarter of native Israeli and FSU-born faculty members are veterans who have been associated with this institution for 11 years or more. The relative weight of veterans among the rest of the groups is much higher. While 48% of US-born faculty members reach seniority levels of over 11 years, among immigrants from other countries 66.7% have been associated with this institution for over 11 years. In addition, a significant correlation was found between the type of faculty and country of origin. 57.4% of native Israelis and 64% of US-born faculty teach at the Faculty of Social Sciences and the Humanities, while only 17.5% of immigrants from the FSU teach at this faculty. In addition, 45% of immigrants from the FSU were found to teach at the Faculty of Natural Sciences and 37.5% at the Faculty of Engineering. There are almost no immigrant instructors (from the FSU, USA, and other countries) at the Faculties of Architecture and Health Sciences.

20 Regarding professional characteristics, no significant correlation was found between the tenure and rank of faculty members and their country of origin. In order to examine to what degree background variables distinguish between immigrants and native Israelis, a discriminant analysis was performed. No differences were found between native Israelis, immigrants from the FSU, immigrants from the USA and from other countries, however a borderline significant tendency towards differences between native Israelis and all immigrants was found. The predictors were seniority, age, sex, academic rank, tenure, and scoring on excellence criteria. This series of variables was found to have a borderline significant contribution to the distinction between immigrant and Israeli-born faculty members. Three variables were found to contribute to the distinction between immigrants and native Israelis: Seniority: Immigrant faculty members have more seniority than native Israelis. Scoring on excellence criteria: A larger percentage of immigrant faculty members versus native Israelis scored on excellence criteria. Gender: Among native Israeli faculty members there are a higher percentage of women than among immigrant faculty members. In the second part of the study the research team examined relationships between faculty members achievement measures and their country of origin, with the aim of analyzing differences between native Israeli and immigrant faculty members. A significant correlation was found between scoring on excellence criteria and country of origin. 66.7% of faculty members from other countries scored on excellence criteria, as did 50% of faculty members from the FSU; however only 36% of faculty members who immigrated from the USA and 33.3% of native Israelis scored on excellence in the criteria of research, teaching, academic administration, and contribution to the community. No differences in scoring by origin were found in the fields of research, teaching, academic administration, or contribution to the community. In contrast, differences in scoring were found for working exclusively for this institution by origin. Faculty members from the USA were found to receive higher scores for working exclusively for this institution than faculty members who emigrated from other countries. No differences were found between faculty members who emigrated from the FSU and native Israelis. A discriminant analysis was performed in order to examine to what degree scoring on various excellence criteria distinguishes between immigrants and native Israelis on the faculty. No differences were found between native Israelis, immigrants from the FSU, USA, or other countries, and no differences were found between native Israelis and immigrants in general.