14
It was also apparent that in Australia professional staff were more strongly positioned
as ‘managers’, with a greater polarisation of ‘management’ and ‘academic’ identities,
which could create ‘us’ and ‘them’ attitudes, affirming the views of Dobson (2000)
and Dobson and Conway (2001). This was in contrast to the UK, where a significant
proportion of respondents said that they used the term ‘administrator’ rather than
‘manager’ if this were more acceptable to academic colleagues. Furthermore, in
Australia there was a greater sense of marginalisation among individuals with mixed
backgrounds, although the fact that many professional staff in Australia were
employed on fixed-term contracts, albeit renewable, may have contributed to this.
Possibly as a result of these factors, there was less evidence of the development of
third space in either of the institutions visited.
It was also striking that a high proportion of respondents in the US and Australia had
higher degrees. In the US, where entrants to university administration would be
expected to have completed a master’s programme in, for instance, student affairs,
93% of respondents had master’s degrees and 60% had doctorates. In Australia,
where there was generous support for advanced study, and in-state students were able
to gain exemption from tuition fees, 80% had master’s degrees and 60% had
doctorates. The comparable percentages for the UK were 27% and 8%. In the US
particularly, this picture reflects a well-established higher education knowledge base
for professional staff, which might be seen as an academic, or at least a professional,
discipline in its own right. Individuals were more likely than in the UK to be involved
in contributing to professional networks, publications, journals and conferences.
Furthermore, the concept of ‘academic administration’ had different connotations
from the way it was understood in the UK, in that the most senior institutional
managers, including presidents, were referred to as ‘academic administrators’.
Possibly for the reasons outlined above, a majority of respondents in the US referred
to having the respect and trust of academic colleagues on the basis of their
professional knowledge or of their institutional position. Thus, in the US, professional
staff appeared to have a both a stronger profile and greater autonomy than in the UK
or Australia. People involved in more project-oriented, developmental activity tended
to be mainstreamed in, for instance, offices of institutional research or student life. It
appeared, however, to be a more political environment, and professional staff were
expected to be able to negotiate their position, and that of their function or project,
within this.
Thus, while the results of the second part of the study are not directly comparable
with the first, because the overseas interviews focused on less bounded forms of
professional, they are of interest in providing possible indicators of future directions
in the UK. A longitudinal study would be required to find out if less bounded forms
are on the increase, at what rate this is occurring, and whether new boundaries may in
turn be created, particularly by blended professionals, who are dedicated to
embedding mixed forms of activity that will assist the university in linking with its
multiple constituencies.
Conclusion