This paper examines perceptions by academics of their work in the Australian state of Victoria, and places such perceptions within the context of international and Australian debates on the academic profession. A 2010 survey conducted by the National Tertiary Education Union in Victoria was analysed in light of the literature on academic work satisfaction and on corporatised managerial practice (''managerialism''). The analysis is also placed in the context of neo-liberalism, defined as a more marketised provision combined with increased pro-market state regulation. Factor analysis was used to reduce 18 items we hypothesised as drivers of work satisfaction to four factors: managerial culture, workloads, work status and self-perceived productivity. Regression models show the relative effects of these factors on two items measuring work satisfaction. This analysis is complemented by discursive analysis of open-ended responses. We found that satisfaction among academics was low and decreasing compared to a previous survey, and that management culture was the most important driver. Concern with workloads also drove dissatisfaction, although academics seem happy to be more productive if they have control over their work and develop in their jobs. Work status had little effect. In the open-ended responses the more dissatisfied academics tended to contrast a marketised present to a collegial past. While respondents seem to conflate all recent managerial change with marketisation, we pose a crucial question: whether the need for more professional management needs to be congruent with marketising policy directions.

No abstract

IntroductionSarcopenia (or loss of muscle mass and function) is a relatively new area within the field of musculoskeletal research and medicine. Investigating whether there is a social gradient, including occupation type and income level, of sarcopenia, as observed for other diseases, will contribute significantly to the limited evidence base for this disease. This new information may inform the prevention and management of sarcopenia and widen the evidence base to support existing and future health campaigns.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic search of the databases PubMed, Ovid, CINAHL, Scopus and EMBASE to identify articles that investigate associations between social determinants of health and sarcopenia in adults aged 50 years and older. Eligibility of the selected studies will be determined by two independent reviewers. The methodological quality of eligible studies will be assessed according to predetermined criteria. Established statistical methods to identify and control for heterogeneity will be used, and where appropriate, we will conduct a meta-analysis. In the event that heterogeneity prevents numerical synthesis, a best evidence analysis will be employed. This systematic review protocol adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols reporting guidelines and will be registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO).Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will use published data, thus ethical permissions will not be required. In addition to peer-reviewed publication, our results will be presented at (inter)national conferences relevant to the field of sarcopenia, ageing and/or musculoskeletal health and disseminated both electronically and in print.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017072253.