Neoliberalism is an ideology that, although it was born in the economic sphere and developed in the political field, soon began to permeate different sectors such as health and education (Rodgers, 2018). This ideological trend is characterised by principles such as the free-market economy or the privatisation of public sectors, among other aspects (Olssen and Peterson, 2005). In general terms, we can understand neoliberalism as a doctrine whose main objective is to make agencies and entities much more economically efficient (Dougherty and Natow, 2019). In the case of Higher Education, the effect of neoliberalism has been particularly significant for several reasons. First, because of the long tradition of university-market relations (Brunner, 2008). Secondly, because of the enormous impact that universities have on societies. And thirdly, for conceiving the university itself as an important market good, i.e., understanding higher education as a key element for economic development (Tomicic, 2019).

According to Ball and Youndell (2007), the impact of neoliberalism on Higher Education has materialised in two parallel processes: (1) privatisation processes; and (2) the adoption of private (market) practices by the public education sector. However, in addition to these changes, new forms of accountability that have been justified as an instrument of transparency and democratic legitimacy, as well as a means of controlling the quality, autonomy and performance of universities have also spread (Macheridis and Paulsson, 2021). In this sense, the last decades have witnessed a considerable increase in evaluation processes focusing on different elements of higher education (teaching, curricula, mobility schemes, etc.), on the results of which the development of the institution partly depends (obtaining incentives, increasing social prestige, etc.).

In the specific case of university teaching staff, this governance has materialised in the form of professional performance evaluations characterised by giving priority to the quantification of scientific production over other functions, and on whose results depends the achievement of benefits such as grants, funding, research projects or even salary supplements (San Fabián, 2020). This evaluation system is not a unique phenomenon, but rather a reality that is widespread throughout the world. International examples include: Excellence in Research for Australia (Australia); Research Assessment Exercise (Hong Kong); Research Excellence Framework (UK), Initiatives d'Excellence (France), STAR METRICS (USA), Excellenzinitiative (Germany), Academia and PEP (Spain), etc.

This whole system generates important consequences on academics, not only affecting their professional practices but also their social and family relationships and their health status (Saura and Bolívar, 2019; Shams, 2019; Mula-Falcón et al., 2022; McCune, 2020). But how satisfied are academics in relation to this system? Therefore, the main objective of this study is to analyse the degree of satisfaction of academics with these systems that evaluates their professional activity. Secondary objectives are, on the one hand, to determine the existence of differences in the degree of satisfaction according to different variables and, on the other hand, to investigate the reasons for these differences.

This paper is part of a broader line of research, addressed through two research projects, titled "The influence of neoliberalism on academic identities and the level of professional satisfaction" (PID2019-105631GA-I00/AEI/10.13039/501100011033), and "New teaching staff in Andalusian universities: quantified and digitized academic identities" (B-SEJ-534-UGR20),  granted by the State Research Agency of the Ministry of Science and Innovation and the Andalusian Agency for Knowledge and Universities of the Andalusian Ministry.

In order to achieve the proposed objectives, a combined and complementary study of quantitative and qualitative methodologies was developed. Therefore, this study presents a descriptive and interpretative approach using a mixed CUAN-QUAL design. The quantitative part was developed through the application of a questionnaire, while the qualitative part was developed through the development of semi-structured in-depth interviews. The questionnaire used is entitled "Perceptions and satisfaction of academics regarding the development and evaluation of their professional activity" (PSPU). The aim of this questionnaire is to assess how academics perceive the context in which they carry out their professional work marked by the evaluation systems, and to find out how satisfied they are with it. In this case, the questionnaire was subjected to validity and reliability analyses. For content validation, an expert judgement was carried out; and for construct validation, it was calculated by means of a confirmatory factor analysis. However, this study only focuses on one of the dimensions that make up the questionnaire, i.e., the one that focuses on the satisfaction of academics in relation to the evaluation criteria of their professional activity. Quantitative data were analysed by descriptive analysis and analysis of significant differences according to the variables professional category, age and sex. The SPSS software was used for this purpose. In relation to the qualitative data, an illustrative approach was used. This consists of extracting quotations, fragments or paragraphs that help to show and/or illustrate certain aspects of interest. In this way, it was used as a means to give meaning and understanding to the results obtained from the quantitative analysis. In this case and with the aim of systematising and objectifying the process, the qualitative software Nvivo12 was used. Finally, in relation to the study sample, a total of 2183 Spanish academics from the 9 Andalusian public universities participated in the quantitative part of the study. This final sample represents 12.4% of the population. In relation to the qualitative part, the sample consisted of a total of 25 subjects selected from two types of non-probabilistic sampling: convenience sampling and snowball sampling.

From these analysis processes, low levels of satisfaction (3.90 out of 7) are expected among university teaching staff in relation to the evaluation criteria of their professional activity, as well as significant differences in relation to the three variables analysed (gender, professional category and scientific discipline). In these variables, the highest levels of satisfaction are observed in men (3.972), the most advanced professional categories (4.004) and the branches of science (4.021) and health sciences (3.949). Possible reasons include: maternity/inequality criteria (not taking into account certain periods in a woman's life (pregnancy), the job stability of certain professional categories and the greater benefit of certain disciplines (for example, a greater number of better indexed journals or a greater tradition in the world of scientific publication).

Ball, S., and Youndell, D. (2007). Hidden privatisation in public education. Education International. Macheridis, N., and Paulsson, N. (2021). Tracing accountability in higher education. Research in education, 110(1), 78-97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034523721993143 McCune, V. (2019). Academic identities in contemporary higher education: sustaining identities that value teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1632826 Mula-Falcon, J. and Caballero, K. (2022). Neoliberalism and its impact on academics: A qualitative review. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 27(3), 373-390. https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2022.2076053 Olssen, A., and Peterson, M.A. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: from the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 313-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930500108718 Rodgers, D. (2018). The uses and abuses of ‘neoliberalism’. Dissent, 65(1), 78–87. https://doi.org/10.1353/dss.2018.0010 San Fabián, J. (2020). El reconocimiento de la actividad investigadora universitaria como mecanismo de regulación del mercado académico. Márgenes, Revista de Educación de la Universidad de Málaga, 1(1), 23-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.24310/mgnmar.v1i1.7208 Saura, G., and Bolívar, A. (2019). Sujeto académico neoliberal: Cuantificado, digitalizado y bibliometrificado. REICE. Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación, 17(4), 9-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.15366/reice2019.17.4.001 Shams, F. (2019). Managing academic identity tensions in a Canadian public university: the role of identity work in coping with managerialism. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 41(6), 619-132. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2019.1643960 Tomicic, A. (2019). American dream, Humboldtian nightmare: Reflections on the remodelled values of a neoliberalized academia. Policy Futures in Education, 17(8), 1057-1077. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210319834825