mid-career practitioners to enhance the credibility of academic programmes. Indeed, overall the entry
profile into academia is becoming more diverse. This presents additional challenges for the provision
of coherent and relevant development programmes and frameworks. Whilst not necessarily negating
the broad utility of progressional models, that is those organised around conceptions of initial and
continuing development, these trends mean that any model needs to be capable of flexible
interpretation and tailored responses.
External factors exercise significant, if contested, influence. That contestation stems from
objections to external intrusion into, and occasionally imposition upon, the autonomy and authority of
the academy (Adams, 2005). In the United Kingdom, for example, institutions have had, increasingly,
to provide formal training and development on topics and issues so as to satisfy legal requirements,
directives or “guidance” from funding agencies and government. Those requirements can sit
uncomfortably alongside provision which addresses self-identified individual development needs, that
is, where an academic recognises that development or training will help them to handle a new or
expanded role or task, to undertake the job more effectively, or to acquire or improve skills.
Typically, institutions in the United Kingdom now offer an initial programme in learning,
teaching and assessment, accredited by the Higher Education Academy. Many expect new entrants to
academia to complete the relevant programme. They also make provision for the induction of staff
who are new to postgraduate supervision. Gradually, they are implementing ways of facilitating
continuing professional development of academics through optional modular structures and other
means. Other common strands in formal provision are leadership and management programmes, for
both heads of department and more senior staff, and a widening array of specialised provision to
support those undertaking particular roles and duties (enterprise, research management, student
support, or e-learning).
New entrants to academia, who have personal experience of the approaches to professional
development in industry or the professions, increasingly expect similar support within higher
education. Development is not, however, solely a matter of programmes or courses. A great deal is
informal, and occurs within the individual’s day-to-day work setting and peer community. Conference
attendance and sabbaticals are properly part of the development support that institutions provide, and
development strategies are extending to more formal usage of mentoring and coaching.
Professional Staff
The term “professional staff” is used in this paper to refer to staff who are not employed on
academic contracts, but who undertake professional roles, either in general management; in specialist
areas such as finance or estates; in niche areas such as quality or widening participation; or in quasi-
academic areas such as learning support. This distinguishes them from academic managers such as
pro-vice-chancellors or deans, although as will be shown, boundaries are blurring. It is not, however,
intended to imply that academic staff are not also professionals in their own right. Because
contemporary institutions are obliged to operate simultaneously in both global and local settings, they
have become complex organisations (Scott, 1998; Barnett, 2000; Bauman, 2000; Hassan, 2003; Urry,
2003). This means that they increasingly require people who are able to contextualise academic
activity against fluctuations in the external environment, be it in relation to, for instance, schools
outreach, regional business development or overseas campuses. Professional staff who have
understanding of this broader terrain undertake interpretive roles at the boundaries between academic
work, internal constituencies and external partners, forging links between them, and undertaking what
might be described as quasi-academic work. This has led not only to greater diversity within the
workforce, but also to a blurring of traditional divisions between academic and professional staff.