A Novel Definition of Professional Staff
The Emerald Handbook of Research Management and Administration Around the World
ISBN: 978-1-80382-702-5, eISBN: 978-1-80382-701-8
Publication date: 29 November 2023
Abstract
Based on a review of professional staff (PS), which includes research managers and administrators, in 54 academic publications, I propose a novel definition for this category of staff: ‘degree holding university employees who are primarily responsible for developing, maintaining and changing the social, digital and physical infrastructures that enable education, research and knowledge exchange’. The proposed definition facilitates the development of new research questions that target the level of the organisational fields of higher education and science, to complement research on the university and individual levels. This view supports the study of the contributions of PS to higher education and science. I anticipate that such a broader focus will help to counter and nuance accounts of ‘administrative bloat’ by focusing on how PS as a group shape and are shaped by the organisational fields of higher education and science, rather than dismissing them as superfluous or parasitic.
Keywords
Citation
de Jong, S. (2023), "A Novel Definition of Professional Staff", Kerridge, S., Poli, S. and Yang-Yoshihara, M. (Ed.) The Emerald Handbook of Research Management and Administration Around the World, Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 99-112. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80382-701-820231010
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2024 Stefan de Jong
License
These works are published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of these works (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
Introduction
Based on a review of definitions of PS in academic literature, in this chapter, I propose a novel definition for this category of staff: ‘degree holding university employees who are primarily responsible for developing, maintaining and changing the social, digital and physical infrastructures that enable education, research and knowledge exchange’. I propose a new definition for two reasons: (1) the existing popular narrative and even much of the scholarly research on PS defines them by what they do not do (research and teaching), and the proposed definition aims to enable more inclusive and constructive narratives around PS; and (2) the existing body of literature on PS is highly dispersed and does not agreed upon a definition of PS, so by proposing an overarching definition I aim to help integrate the body of literature about PS and stimulate future research on PS. In particular, I believe that research on the level of the organisational fields of higher education and science to be promising. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) define organisational fields as ‘those organizations that, in the aggregate, constitute a recognized area of institutional life’. As such, building upon existing insights about individuals and their roles within universities, research at this level about PS will contribute to a nuanced understanding of the role of this group in higher education as a whole. Research managers and administrators constitute one of the occupational groups that fall under this category of university employees.1 I hope that this novel definition facilitates practical discussions about the role of research managers and administrators, as well as research into this specific role.
In recent decades, a new and distinct group of employees has emerged at universities. On the one hand, the primary responsibilities of these employees are not in teaching and education, distinguishing them from academics. On the other hand, in general, they hold higher education degrees (Acker et al., 2019; Allen-Collinson, 2007; Berman & Pitman, 2010; Gornitzka & Larsen, 2004; Harman & Stone, 2006; Krücken et al., 2013; Ryttberg & Geschwind, 2017; Shelley, 2010; Szekeres, 2011), possess highly specialised knowledge (Karlsson & Ryttberg, 2016; Qu, 2021; Ryttberg, 2020), experience considerable levels of autonomy (Aarrevaara & Dobson, 2016; Karlsson & Ryttberg, 2016; Qu, 2021; Ryttberg, 2020; Ryttberg & Geschwind, 2017), and hold strategic positions in networks both within and beyond the university (Cox et al., 2017; Daly, 2013; De Jong et al., 2016; Harman & Stone, 2006; Ryttberg, 2020), which sets them apart from the clerical, technical and manual staff, such as secretaries, laboratory analysts and animal caretakers. I refer to this group of employees as PS, as this term is most commonly used in the literature (Whitchurch, 2020) and preferred by these employees themselves (Sebalj et al., 2012).
Despite the rapid growth of this body of staff (see for instance Stage & Aagaard, 2019, who report a 500% increase in Denmark between 1999 and 2018), there is relatively little research available about PS (Bossu et al., 2018). Evidence-based discussions about PS are further complicated by national differences in referring to this group of employees (Acker et al., 2019). As far as I am aware, existing academic reviews about PS have not concentrated on terms and definitions (e.g. Gander et al., 2019; Schneijderberg & Merkator, 2013; Szekeres, 2011; Veles & Carter, 2016). Therefore, I took up the task of reviewing the academic literature about PS to identify the diversity of alternative terms that authors use, as well as the definitions or descriptions of these terms. The analysis of terms, definitions and descriptions in 54 documents enables me to propose a novel definition of PS that unites the different national and disciplinary discussions.
The remainder of this chapter is organised as follows. In the next section, I explain the methodology. The Web of Science and Scopus were consulted to retrieve relevant documents, and searched for terms and definitions within these documents, which I subsequently analysed. In the following section, I discuss the results and support the proposed novel definition of PS. The section includes an overview of retrieved terms, definitions and descriptions, as well as a visualisation of the construction of the definition that I propose. In the final section, I conclude by discussing the rhetorical and analytical value of this definition.
Method
I reviewed the terms for and definitions and descriptions of PS that authors use to refer to this category of employees in their research. This chapter is based on a body of literature that was collected to review the available insights on the contribution of PS to academic knowledge development. Thus, studies about PS who solely work in education or other student-related areas of work, such as sports or counselling, were not included in the analysis. In this chapter, I summarise the different steps of the literature collection and the description of the dataset. See De Jong and Del Junco (under review) for a more detailed exposition. I also explain how I analysed the data for the purpose of this chapter.
Data Collection
The collection process consisted of four steps. In step 1, Cay del Junco and I searched the Web of Science (21 June 2021) and Scopus (13 July 2021) for articles, books, book chapters, reviews, and ‘early access’ articles (in the case of the Web of Science) containing universit* AND (administrat* OR staff) in their titles. After comparing the results and removing duplicates, we retained 2,197 documents. Step 2 entailed an analysis of titles and abstracts to identify those documents that were likely to talk about the involvement of PS in academic research. Many titles that included administrat*, were about drug administration or senior leadership of universities, which in the United States are often referred to as ‘administrators’. Only 42 documents were retained in step 2. In step 3, we used forward and backward citation tracking to identify additional relevant documents, as we expected that the wide distribution of relevant publications and terms that we were not aware of prevented us from capturing all relevant publications. We repeated this process until we no longer found relevant publications that were not included already. A total of 103 documents were added in this step. In step 4, we considered documents that were not linked to the original set of documents through citations, but that colleagues suggested during informal discussions, as well as seminar and conference presentations. Only documents that were included in the Web of Science and/or Scopus were retained. This resulted in the identification of an additional 22 documents. Due to the goal of the review that the dataset was collected for, in step 5 we only retained documents for further analysis that presented original research (thus excluding reviews, theoretical papers and opinion pieces) about the competencies, relationships and influence of PS that are relevant for their contributions to academic knowledge development.
Description of the Dataset
The final dataset consists of 54 documents, including eight book chapters and 46 journal articles, authored by 71 unique authors. The journal articles were published in 26 unique journal titles, in line with the hypothesis that the academic literature about PS is highly dispersed. Doubtless, the focus on competencies, relationships and influence will have resulted in the exclusion of publications that are considered to be seminal to broader discussions about PS, but that did not present original research relevant to the broader review. Nevertheless, I believe that the broadness of the dataset will have guarded me against overlooking crucial elements for the construction of a novel definition. Also, I realise that limiting the search to the Web of Science and Scopus may have excluded publications authored by PS in professional journals. Yet, the perspective of PS is well represented in our dataset. All three most cited authors currently work or have worked as PS.
Thirty-two documents are about PS in general, or position the study of particular roles within the broader discussion of PS. The definitions and descriptions of PS in these documents serve as the main input for the novel definition. Twenty-two documents focus on specific PS roles. The definitions and descriptions in these documents help to fine-tune the novel definition, making it inclusive to a broad diversity of specific roles. The three most represented organisational roles in the overall set are research managers and administrators (15 documents), librarians (10 documents) and technology transfer officers (7 documents). The three most represented countries of study are the United Kingdom (14 documents), Australia (10 documents) and Germany (6 documents). Note that a single paper can cover multiple roles and/or countries.
Data Analysis
The final set of documents was analysed in NVivo (version 12.6.1) software for qualitative analysis. I searched each document for the term(s) that the authors used and for corresponding definitions of the terms. If no definition was provided, I searched for descriptions that reveal how authors had implicitly defined the term(s) they used to refer to PS. Inspired by the Gioia methodology (Gioia et al., 2012), which supports the systematic and inductive analysis of qualitative data, I identified commonly used components of definitions and descriptions of PS. These components were used to develop the novel definition of PS.
PS: Terms, Definitions and Descriptions
In this section, I review the terms that are used to denote PS. I also discuss the definitions and descriptions of these terms.
No less than 18 alternative terms are used to refer to PS in the reviewed documents (Table 2.1.1). Some of these terms are contested. Allen-Collinson (2007) considers ‘support’ pejorative, a label that Szekeres (2004) attaches to ‘administration’. Similarly, several authors suggest that ‘non-academic’ is problematic, as it others and disrespects people by negating them – labelling them by what they are not (Allen-Collinson, 2009; Dobson, 2000; Mcinnis, 1998). Therefore, a novel definition of PS should avoid these words due to their negative connotations.
Terms and Definitions.
| Term | Definition or Description |
|---|---|
| (the) Administration |
|
| Administrative professionals |
|
| Administrative personnel |
|
| Administrative staff |
|
| Administrators |
|
| Allied staff |
|
| Blended professional |
|
| General staff |
|
| Grassroots administrators |
|
| Higher education professionals |
|
| New professionals |
|
| Non-faculty professional staff members |
|
| Para-academic |
|
| Professional and managerial staff |
|
| Professional and scientific staff |
|
| Professional staff |
|
| Professional support staff |
|
| Third space professional |
|
| University professional services staff |
|
Related to the variation in terms to refer to PS, there does not seem to be a widely agreed-upon definition of PS yet. For the 19 terms that authors use, including ‘PS’, I found 22 definitions and descriptions. Seven studies did not explicitly define or describe the term(s) used, leading to four terms that were not defined in any of the reviewed documents at all – but may have been defined elsewhere. One term, ‘para-academic’, is defined as ‘individuals who specialise in one type of element of academic life’ (Macfarlane, 2011), which includes PS, but not exclusively. The term refers to those with full-time research or full-time teaching positions as well. Although this captures an interesting development in academia, it is too broad for the purpose of defining PS. Regarding the definitions and descriptions of the remaining terms, ‘allied staff’ simply describes PS as non-academic staff (Wohlmuther, 2008).
My analysis of more elaborate definitions and descriptions identifies identity (Ryttberg, 2020; Ryttberg & Geschwind, 2017, 2019), academic degree (Ryttberg, 2020; Ryttberg & Geschwind, 2017), organisational roles (Gibbs & Kharouf, 2020; Kallenberg, 2016), nature of the work (Berman & Pitman, 2010; Gornitzka & Larsen, 2004; Henkin & Persson, 1992; Hockey & Allen-Collinson, 2009; Kallenberg, 2020; Kehm, 2015a, 2015b; Krücken et al., 2013; Szekeres, 2011; Whitchurch, 2008c, 2010c; Wilkins & Leckie, 1997) or even specific jobs (Karlsson & Ryttberg, 2016; Krücken et al., 2013) as elements of definitions. Still, some of these definitions and descriptions also include ‘othering’ elements, by referring to non-academic employment statuses (Berman & Pitman, 2010; Henkin & Persson, 1992; Ryttberg, 2020; Ryttberg & Geschwind, 2017, 2019; Whitchurch, 2008c).
A closer inspection of these elements of definitions and descriptions informed which elements I incorporated into the novel definition. ‘Academic degree’, including bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees, was included as in general this is a distinctive characteristic of PS compared to secretarial, technical and maintenance staff. As ‘university’ denotes the type of organisation that PS commonly work at, this element was included as well. The ‘nature of the work’ was identified as ‘enabling primary processes’, following Kallenberg (2016) and authors that talk about involvement in for example research. Gibbs and Kharouf (2020) and the objective to exclude othering elements inspired the use of ‘enabling’. I did not include ‘identity’, as a closer reading reveals that the main point of this element is that PS do not identify as administrators nor academics. Thus, this would introduce a negative or othering element to the novel definition. Still, I made sure not to include references to administration (or academics) in the proposed definition to respect the identity of PS. I did not include references to specific roles either as this would limit the scope of the definition. Yet, I translated these roles into generic responsibilities. For example, Karlsson and Ryttberg’s (2016, p. 1) definition included examples of concrete roles in ‘internationalization, business liaison and research funding’, which simultaneously indicate responsibilities around social infrastructures (relationships with international partners and companies) and primary processes in universities (knowledge development and knowledge transfer).
Next to PS and its alternatives, 22 documents focus on one or more of the following subgroups: research managers and administrators (10 documents), librarians (8 documents), technology transfer officers (2 documents), faculty managers (1 document), grant officers (1 document), information technology staff (1 document) and staff involved in developing research data management policies (one document). Although these roles both inform the definition of PS that I present in this section, due to space limitations I have not included the corresponding terms in Table 2.1.1.
The analysis of definitions and descriptions of these specific roles provides further support for the included elements, as well as for fine-tuning them. The work on research managers and administrators (e.g. Allen-Collinson, 2006; Beime et al., 2021; Ito & Watanabe, 2021) and technology transfer (Harman & Stone, 2006; Sapir, 2020) highlighted the enabling of primary processes as central to the work of PS. Although librarians are not defined in any of the included documents, a closer reading of these documents (e.g. Antell et al., 2017; Cox et al., 2017; Joo & Schmidt, 2021; Sanches, 2015) shows that in addition to managing collections of books and other texts, they increasingly have responsibilities around data management, digitalisation of libraries and online-repositories. This led to the addition of ‘physical’ and ‘digital’ to the element of infrastructure.
Combining the elements that I identified through our analysis of existing terms, definitions and descriptions I propose to define PS as ‘degree holding university employees who are primarily responsible for developing, maintaining and changing the social, digital and physical infrastructures that enable education, research and knowledge exchange’. See Fig. 2.1.1 for a visualisation of the construction of this new definition based on elements of existing definitions and descriptions. Words and phrases that are printed in bold informed the identification of the elements.
Conclusion
In this chapter, I have reviewed the terms that authors use to refer to PS in academic literature, as well as the definitions and descriptions of these terms that they provide. This analysis resulted in a novel definition of PS:
Degree-holding university employees who are primarily responsible for developing, maintaining and changing the social, digital and physical infrastructures that enable education, research and knowledge exchange.
Rhetorically, it defines PS by what they do, rather than by what they do not do, and puts them at the centre of the core tasks of the university, rather than positioning them at the periphery, as terms such as ‘administration’ and ‘support’ signal. Thus, the definition steers us away from narratives about PS that can be characterised as ‘othering’ or ‘pejorative’ (Allen-Collinson, 2006, 2009; Dobson, 2000; Mcinnis, 1998; Szekeres, 2004).
Analytically, while acknowledging that the division of different types of responsibilities in academia is increasingly blurred (Bossu et al., 2018; Kallenberg, 2016; Krücken et al., 2013; Schneijderberg & Merkator, 2013), it distinguishes different functions in universities based on primary responsibilities (Stage & Aagaard, 2019).
Such a distinction facilitates the development of new research questions that target the level of the organisational fields of higher education and science, to complement research on the university and individual levels. According to DiMaggio and Powell (1983), the advantage of the organisational field perspective is that it takes into account ‘the totality of relevant actors’. This view supports the study of contributions of PS, including research managers and administrators, to higher education and science, rather than limiting it to the study of roles in the specific organisations they work for. I anticipate that such a broader focus will help to counter and nuance accounts of ‘administrative bloat’ (cf. Ginsberg, 2013) by focusing on how PS as a group shape and are shaped by the organisational field of higher education, rather than dismissing them as superfluous or parasitic. In particular, the proposed definition resonates with the concept of ‘institutional work’, which refers to ‘the purposive action aimed at creating, maintaining, and disrupting institutions’, and facilitates understanding how micro-level actions relate to institutional change (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006, p. 215). Sapir (2020) and Beime et al. (2021), both included in the reviewed dataset, provide examples of such work. The first study shows how technology transfer professionals maintain social infrastructures for knowledge exchange by securing the freedom to publish in collaboration with industry, whereas the second demonstrates how grant advisers change social infrastructures by stimulating competition among academics. The proposed definition enables identifying similar contributions of PS, for example, through the lens of institutional work.
Declaration of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Additionally, organisations such as consultancy firms, hospitals, public research organisations and research funders may employ research managers and administrators. The definition of PS that I propose in this chapter, however, is based on literature about PS employed by universities.
References
Aarrevaara, & Dobson 2016Aarrevaara, T., & Dobson, I. R. (2016). An analysis of the opinions of university non-academic staff in the Nordic countries. Journal of the European Higher Education Area, 3, 1–14.
Acker, McGinn, & Campisi 2019Acker, S., McGinn, M., & Campisi, C. (2019). The work of university research administrators: Praxis and professionalization. Journal of Praxis in Higher Education, 1(1), 61–85.
Allen-Collinson 2009Allen-Collinson, J. (2009). Negative ‘marking’? University research administrators and the contestation of moral exclusion. Studies in Higher Education, 34(8), 941–954. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070902755641
Allen-Collinson 2006Allen-Collinson, J. A. (2006). Just ‘non-academics’?: Research administrators and contested occupational identity. Work, Employment and Society, 20(2), 267–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017006064114
Allen-Collinson 2007Allen-Collinson, J. A. (2007). ‘Get yourself some nice, neat, matching box files!’ Research administrators and occupational identity work. Studies in Higher Education, 32(3), 295–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070701346832
Antell, Foote, Turner, & Shults 2017Antell, K., Foote, J. B., Turner, J., & Shults, B. (2017). Dealing with data: Science Librarians’ Participation in Data Management at Association of Research Libraries Institutions. College & Research Libraries. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.75.4.557
Beime, Englund, & Gerdin 2021Beime, K. S., Englund, H., & Gerdin, J. (2021). Giving the invisible hand a helping hand: How ‘Grants Offices’ work to nourish neoliberal researchers. British Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3697
Berman, & Pitman 2010Berman, J. E., & Pitman, T. (2010). Occupying a ‘third space’: Research trained professional staff in Australian universities. Higher Education, 60(2), 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9292-z
Bossu, Brown, & Warren 2018Bossu, C., Brown, N., & Warren, V. (2018). Professional and support staff in higher education: An introduction. In C. Bossu & N. Brown (Eds.), Professional and support staff in higher education (pp. 1–8). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6858-4_29
Cox, Kennan, Lyon, & Pinfield 2017Cox, A. M., Kennan, M. A., Lyon, L., & Pinfield, S. (2017). Developments in research data management in academic libraries: Towards an understanding of research data service maturity. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9), 2182–2200. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23781
Daly 2013Daly, S. (2013). Philanthropy, the new professionals and higher education: The advent of Directors of Development and Alumni Relations. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2012.727701
De Jong, & Del Junco (under review)De Jong, S. P. L., & Del Junco, C. (under review). How do professional staff influence academic knowledge development? A literature review and research agenda.
De Jong, Smit, & Van Drooge 2016De Jong, S. P. L., Smit, J. P., & Van Drooge, L. H. A. (2016). Scientists’ response to societal impact policies: A policy paradox. Science and Public Policy, 43(1), 102–114. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scv023
DiMaggio, & Powell 1983DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Dobson 2000Dobson, I. R. (2000). ’Them and us’—General and non-general staff in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 22(2), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/713678142
Frølich, Christensen, & Stensaker 2019Frølich, N., Christensen, T., & Stensaker, B. (2019). Strengthening the strategic capacity of public universities: The role of internal governance models. Public Policy and Administration, 34(4), 475–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076718762041
Gander, Girardi, & Paull 2019Gander, M., Girardi, A., & Paull, M. (2019). The careers of university professional staff: A systematic literature review. Career Development International, 24(7), 597–618. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-07-2018-0191
Gibbs, & Kharouf 2020Gibbs, T., & Kharouf, H. (2020). The value of co-operation: An examination of the work relationships of university professional services staff and consequences for service quality. Studies in Higher Education, 0(0), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1725878
Ginsberg 2013Ginsberg, B. (2013). The fall of the faculty (Reprint ed.). Oxford University Press.
Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton 2012Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2012). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151
Gornitzka, & Larsen 2004Gornitzka, Å., & Larsen, I. M. (2004). Towards professionalisation? Restructuring of administrative work force in universities. Higher Education, 47(4), 455–471. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:HIGH.0000020870.06667.f1
Gray 2015Gray, S. (2015). Culture clash or ties that bind? What Australian academics think of professional staff. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37(5), 545–557. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2015.1079397
Harman, & Stone 2006Harman, G., & Stone, C. (2006). Australian university technology transfer managers: Backgrounds, work roles, specialist skills and perceptions. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28(3), 213–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800600979959
Henkin, & Persson 1992Henkin, A. B., & Persson, D. (1992). Faculty as gatekeepers: Non-academic staff participation in University Governance. Journal of Educational Administration, 30(2). https://doi.org/10.1108/09578239210014487
Hockey, & Allen-Collinson 2009Hockey, J., & Allen-Collinson, J. (2009). Occupational knowledge and practice amongst UK University Research Administrators. Higher Education Quarterly, 63(2), 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2008.00409.x
Hüther, & Krücken 2018Hüther, O., & Krücken, G. (2018). Higher education in Germany—Recent developments in an international perspective. Springer International Publishing. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319614786
Ito, & Watanabe 2021Ito, S., & Watanabe, T. (2021). Multilevel analysis of research management professionals and external funding at universities: Empirical evidence from Japan. Science and Public Policy, scaa074. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scaa074
Joo, & Schmidt 2021Joo, S., & Schmidt, G. M. (2021). Research data services from the perspective of academic librarians. Digital Library Perspectives, 37(3), 242–256. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLP-10-2020-0106
Kallenberg 2016Kallenberg, T. (2016). Interacting spheres revisited. In R. M. O. Pritchard, A. Pausits, & J. Williams (Eds.), Positioning higher education institutions: From here to there (pp. 177–197). SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-660-6_10
Kallenberg 2020Kallenberg, T. (2020). Differences in influence: Different types of university employees compared. Tertiary Education and Management, 26(4), 363–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-020-09058-w
Karlsson, & Ryttberg 2016Karlsson, S., & Ryttberg, M. (2016). Those who walk the talk: The role of administrative professionals in transforming universities into strategic actors. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2016(2–3), 31537. https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v2.31537
Kehm 2015aKehm, B. M. (2015a). Academics and new higher education professionals: Tensions, reciprocal influences and forms of professionalization. In Academic work and careers in Europe: Trends, challenges, perspectives (pp. 177–200). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10720-2_9
Kehm 2015bKehm, B. M. (2015b). The influence of new higher education professionals on academic work. In Forming, recruiting and managing the academic profession (pp. 101–111). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16080-1_6
Krücken, Blümel, & Kloke 2013Krücken, G., Blümel, A., & Kloke, K. (2013). The managerial turn in higher education? On the interplay of organizational and occupational change in German Academia. Minerva, 51(4), 417–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-013-9240-z
Lawrence, & Suddaby 2006Lawrence, T., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In T. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (2nd ed., pp. 215–254). Sage. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3197577
Macfarlane 2011Macfarlane, B. (2011). The morphing of academic practice: Unbundling and the rise of the para-academic. Higher Education Quarterly, 65(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2010.00467.x
Mcinnis 1998Mcinnis, C. (1998). Academics and professional administrators in Australian Universities: Dissolving boundaries and new tensions. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 20(2), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080980200204
Qu 2021Qu, M. (2021). The role of grassroots administrators in building international partnerships: A multi-level governance perspective. Learning and Teaching, 14(3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3167/latiss.2021.140302
Ryttberg 2020Ryttberg, M. (2020). Legitimacy dynamics of professional support staff at higher education institutions. Higher Education Policy, 35, 218–233. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-020-00206-w
Ryttberg, & Geschwind 2017Ryttberg, M., & Geschwind, L. (2017). Professional support staff at higher education institutions in Sweden: Roles and success factors for the job. Tertiary Education and Management, 23(4), 334–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2017.1322631
Ryttberg, & Geschwind 2019Ryttberg, M., & Geschwind, L. (2019). Professional support staff in higher education: Networks and associations as sense givers. Higher Education, 78(6), 1059–1074. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00388-2
Sanches 2015Sanches, T. (2015). From tradition to innovation: Exploring administration practices in four Portuguese University Libraries. Journal of Library Administration, 55(5), 376–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2015.1047273
Sapir 2020Sapir, A. (2020). Brokering knowledge, monitoring compliance: Technology transfer professionals on the boundary between academy and industry. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 0(0), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2020.1804657
Schneijderberg 2015Schneijderberg, C. (2015). Work jurisdiction of new higher education professionals. In U. Teichler & W. K. Cummings (Eds.), Forming, recruiting and managing the academic profession (pp. 113–144). Springer International Publishing. http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-16080-1
Schneijderberg, & Merkator 2013Schneijderberg, C., & Merkator, N. (2013). The new higher education professionals. In B. M. Kehm & U. Teichler (Eds.), The academic profession in Europe: New tasks and new challenges (pp. 53–92). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4614-5_5
Sebalj, Holbrook, & Bourke 2012Sebalj, D., Holbrook, A., & Bourke, S. (2012). The rise of ‘professional staff’ and demise of the ‘non-academic’: A study of university staffing nomenclature preferences. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(5), 463–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2012.715994
Shelley 2010Shelley, L. (2010). Research managers uncovered: Changing roles and ‘shifting arenas’ in the academy. Higher Education Quarterly, 64(1), 41–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2009.00429.x
Sprague 1994Sprague, M. M. (1994). Information-seeking patterns of university administrators and nonfaculty professional staff members. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 19(6), 378–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/0099-1333(94)90030-2
Stage, & Aagaard 2019Stage, A. K., & Aagaard, K. (2019). Danish universities under transformation: Developments in staff categories as indicator of organizational change. Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00362-y
Szekeres 2004Szekeres, J. (2004). The invisible workers. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 26(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080042000182500
Szekeres 2006Szekeres, J. (2006). General staff experiences in the Corporate University. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28(2), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800600750962
Szekeres 2011Szekeres, J. (2011). Professional staff carve out a new space. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33(6), 679–691. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2011.621193
Takagi 2015Takagi, K. (2015). Blurring boundaries and changing university staff: The case of the University of Hong Kong. Frontiers of Education in China, 10(4), 578–607. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03397089
Veles, & Carter 2016Veles, N., & Carter, M.-A. (2016). Imagining a future: Changing the landscape for third space professionals in Australian higher education institutions. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 38(5), 519–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2016.1196938
Whitchurch 2008aWhitchurch, C. (2008a). Shifting identities and blurring boundaries: The emergence of third space professionals in UK Higher Education. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(4), 377–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2008.00387.x
Whitchurch 2008cWhitchurch, C. (2008c). Beyond administration and management: Reconstructing the identities of professional staff in UK higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 30(4), 375–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800802383042
Whitchurch 2009Whitchurch, C. (2009). The rise of the blended professional in higher education: A comparison between the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States. Higher Education, 58(3), 407–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9202-4
Whitchurch 2010cWhitchurch, C. (2010c). Some implications of ‘public/private’ space for professional identities in higher education. Higher Education, 60(6), 627–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9320-z
Whitchurch 2015Whitchurch, C. (2015). The rise of Third Space Professionals: Paradoxes and dilemmas. In U. Teichler & W. K. Cummings (Eds.), Forming, recruiting and managing the academic profession (pp. 79–99). Springer International Publishing. http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-16080-1
Whitchurch 2020Whitchurch, C. (2020). Professional staff identities in higher education. In P. N. Teixeira & J. C. Shin (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of higher education systems and institutions (pp. 2338–2341). Springer. http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1
Whitchurch, & Gordon 2009Whitchurch, C., & Gordon, G. (2009). Academic and professional identities in higher education: The challenges of a diversifying workforce. Taylor & Francis Group. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uvtilburg-ebooks/detail.action?docID=465356
Wilkins, & Leckie 1997Wilkins, J. L. H., & Leckie, G. J. (1997). University professional and managerial staff: Information needs and seeking. College & Research Libraries, 58(6), 561–574. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.58.6.561
Wohlmuther 2008Wohlmuther, S. (2008). ‘Sleeping with the enemy’: How far are you prepared to go to make a difference? A look at the divide between academic and allied staff. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 30(4), 325–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800802155192
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Cay del Junco (ORCID 0000-0002-3743-2208) for their collaboration in the data collection and valuable feedback on earlier drafts of this chapter. This work was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement number 883676.
- Prelims
- Introduction and Structure
- Introduction to Part 1
- Section 1: History
- Chapter 1.1: The Contribution of International Donors to African Research Management
- Chapter 1.2: History of Research Administration/Management in North America
- Chapter 1.3: Research Managers and Administrators in Asia: History and Future Expectations
- Chapter 1.4: History of Research Management in Australia and New Zealand
- Chapter 1.5: History of RMA in Central and Eastern European Countries
- Chapter 1.6: The Development of Research Management and Administration in Europe: A Short History
- Chapter 1.7: The Establishment and History of the International Network of Research Management Societies
- Section 2: Context
- Chapter 2.1: A Novel Definition of Professional Staff
- Chapter 2.2: The Research Administration as a Profession (RAAAP) Survey
- Chapter 2.3: Routes into Research Management and Administration
- Chapter 2.4: Research Management as Labyrinthine – How and Why People Become and Remain Research Managers and Administrators Around the World
- Chapter 2.5: Where Do RMAs Work?
- Chapter 2.6: The Establishment of a Research Project Management Office at a Medical School in University of São Paulo, FMRP-USP, Brazil
- Chapter 2.7: RMA Education, Training and Professional Development in North America and Europe
- Chapter 2.8: Pathways Towards the Creation of RMA Associations
- Section 3: Identity
- Chapter 3.1: From Conceptualisation to Action – The Quest for Understanding Attitudes of Research Managers and Administrators in the Wider World
- Chapter 3.2: Exploring Forms of Knowledge and Professionalism in RMA in a Global Context
- Chapter 3.3: Understanding Organisational Structures in RMA – An Overview of Structures and Cases in a Global Context
- Chapter 3.4: Research-related Information Management: Reflections from Southern African Practitioners
- Chapter 3.5: Empirical and Empathetic Approaches Taken by Science, Technology and Innovation Coordinators in Southeast Asia
- Chapter 3.6: The Influence of RMA Associations on Identity and Policymaking Internationally
- Chapter 3.7: Evolution of Professional Identity in Research Management and Administration
- Section 4: Professionalism
- Chapter 4.1: Professionalisation of Research Management and Administration in Southern Africa – A Case Study
- Chapter 4.2: Professionalisation of Research Support in Hungary Through the Lens of the Non-research Specific Requirements of Horizon Europe
- Chapter 4.3: Professional Staff in Support Services in Education and Research – How to Connect Research with Practice
- Chapter 4.4: Professional Associations and Professional Development Frameworks
- Chapter 4.5: RASPerS: Prevalence of Occupational Stress and Associated Factors in RMA Professionals
- Chapter 4.6: A Profession in the Making: Insights from Western Balkan Countries
- Chapter 4.7: Key Perspectives for a Long-term Career – Statistical Analysis of International Data for a New Profession
- Chapter 4.8: Diversity and Internationalisation: A New Core Competence for Research Managers?
- Part 2 - Section 5: Country Specific Chapters
- Chapter 5.1: Introduction to the RMA by Country Chapters
- Africa
- Chapter 5.2: Research Management and Administration in Kenya in a Challenging Research Environment
- Chapter 5.3: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in Nigeria
- Chapter 5.4: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in South Africa
- North America
- Chapter 5.5: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in Canada
- Chapter 5.6: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in the Caribbean Community
- Chapter 5.7: Research Administration in the United States
- South America
- Chapter 5.8: Research Management and Administration in Brazil
- Chapter 5.9: Maturity in the Professionalisation of the Research Managers and Administrators in Colombia
- Asia
- Chapter 5.10: Development of RMA in China
- Chapter 5.11: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in India
- Chapter 5.12: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in Japan
- Chapter 5.13: Development of Research Management in Malaysia
- Chapter 5.14: Research Management and Administration in Pakistan's Context
- Chapter 5.15: Research Management and Administration (RMA) in Singapore: Development of RMA Capability in Nanyang Technological University (NTU)
- Chapter 5.16: Research Management and Administration in Vietnam
- Australasia
- Chapter 5.17: The Emergence of the Research Management Profession in Australia
- Chapter 5.18: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in Aotearoa New Zealand
- Central and Eastern Europe
- Chapter 5.19: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in the Baltic Countries: Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania
- Chapter 5.20: RMA in Belarus: Not Yet a Full-Fledged Profession But an Important Part of R&D Activities
- Chapter 5.21: Research Management and Administration in Cyprus
- Chapter 5.22: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in Czechia
- Chapter 5.23: Research Management and Administration in Poland
- Chapter 5.24: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in Romania
- Chapter 5.25: Evolution of RMA in Slovenia
- Chapter 5.26: Research Management and Administration in the Western Balkans
- Western Europe
- Chapter 5.27: Areas of Research Management and Administration in Austria
- Chapter 5.28: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in Denmark
- Chapter 5.29: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in Finland
- Chapter 5.30: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in France
- Chapter 5.31: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in Germany
- Chapter 5.32: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in Iceland
- Chapter 5.33: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in Ireland
- Chapter 5.34: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in Italy
- Chapter 5.35: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in the Netherlands
- Chapter 5.36: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in Norway
- Chapter 5.37: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in Portugal
- Chapter 5.38: The Development of the RMA Profession in Catalonia (Spain)
- Chapter 5.39: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in Sweden
- Chapter 5.40: The Profession of Research Management and Administration in the UK
- Middle East
- Chapter 5.41: Research Management and Administration in Qatar
- Chapter 5.42: Research Management and Administration in Saudi Arabia: Transitioning From an Oil to a Knowledge-based Economy
- Chapter 5.43: Research Management and Administration: An Emerging Profession in the UAE
- Chapter 5.44: Reflections on Research Management and Administration in Various Countries Around the World
- Section 6: Reflections
- Chapter 6: Emerging Trends and Insights in Research Management and Administration
- Glossary
- References
- Index