12
• how the four categories of staff might, in their own ways, most effectively
support institutional objectives;
• how the different categories of staff might interact with each other most
productively.
Furthermore, some institutions are more boundary-driven than others. At one of the
case institutions, where there was a clear demarcation between professional and
academic domains, and between institutional management at the centre and local
management in academic departments, all but one of the respondents were
categorised as bounded professionals, and a number of them expressed frustration
that they were unable to move beyond their functional or organisational ‘silos’.
Moreover, the fact that, overall, the majority of respondents categorised as bounded
professionals were in their fifties, suggests that there may also be a generational
effect. Although more flexible working practices appear to be associated with
younger staff, as might be expected, it may be that less bounded forms of professional
become more bounded if they remain for a long period in the same field, in turn
creating their own boundaries.
It may also be significant that at the institution with the most permeable boundaries,
and the greatest movement of professional staff around them, senior managers were
seeking to implement directional change in the form of local partnership and outreach
activity. The fact that bounded professionals represented a small minority of the staff
interviewed at this institution suggests that senior managers may have appointed,
consciously or unconsciously, less bounded forms of professional, who were likely to
facilitate new forms of activity. It also suggests that there was recognition that such
professionals, having been recruited, would be likely to be frustrated if they were
then overly restricted by boundary considerations.
Organisational positionings of staff may also be more complex than, for instance,
Clark’s (1998) distinctions suggest, in that professional staff are not only operating at
the “centre” (in the central “Administration”) and the “periphery” (for instance, in
academic departments), but are also creating new locales in third space. As a result,
Clark’s distinctions between the “strengthened steering core” and the “stimulated
academic heartland” (Clark, 1998) may begin to be re-conceptualised. Furthermore,
third space working may assist in overcoming the “systemic problem” (Clark, 1995)
of reconciling professional and academic agendas. It might also offer some answers
to questions about ways in which institutions can “sustain change” as they “lean
towards the future” (Clark, 2004, pp. 92-93):
What critical features of university organisation compose these capacities [for
adaptation]? How are these elements developed? How are they sustained and
made into a platform for further change? (Clark, 2004, p. 115)
The study also demonstrated that movement by professional staff between
institutions, and in and out of the sector, has been fostered by institutions seeking to
recruit people with experience from other contiguous sectors, such as regional
development or fundraising. To quote one respondent working in research
partnership, who was “increasingly [recruiting] people with doctorates”: