Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

1 Introduction

Responsibilities of university leadership and faculty management have increased and so have additional tasks in the areas of teaching and research . The growing complexity of universities results in differentiation and professionalisation of functions, tasks and roles for which specific knowledge, permanently updated information and competences are needed which are no longer available to all actors in the universities. Growing responsibilities and differentiation of functions and tasks increase the acceptance of professional working solutions (Klumpp and Teichler 2008, p. 169). For a special group of professionals who are not primarily active in teaching and research but prepare and support decisions of the management, establish services and actively shape the core functions of research and teaching Klumpp and Teichler (2008) introduced the term “Hochschulprofessionelle” (see also Teichler 2003, 2008; Kehm 2006a, b, c; Kehm et al. 2008a, 2010 ) which is translated with “higher education professionals” (HEPROs). Inspired by previous research (e.g. Gornitzka and Larsen 2004; Whitchurch 2004 ), Klumpp and Teichler conducted a quantitative and qualitative survey at two German universities in 2005 in order to evaluate the size and functions of the emerging group of HEPROs. They found a heterogeneous group of HEPROs, mostly highly qualified, satisfying the growing need of university management for systematic knowledge about the university and releasing academic and administrative staff from a variety of functions and tasks (Klumpp and Teichler 2008, pp. 169–171); further characteristics of the group are a high affinity and commitment to the areas of teaching and research, and an on-the-job acquisition of knowledge and skills. The authors summarize that HEPROs are experts in the field of higher education and have a “high degree of familiarity with the core functions of higher education institutions” (Klumpp and Teichler 2008, p. 170). In Germany, as in Great Britain, Norway or the United States, for instance, typical positions of members of this group are assistant to the Dean or research coordinator, typical working areas are internationalisation and international mobility, organisational and staff development, quality assurance or student services (Rosser 2004, p. 319 ; Klumpp and Teichler 2008; Whitchurch 2008a, p. 377 ; Krücken et al. 2009, pp. 18–19; Kehm et al. 2010, pp. 32–33; Macfarlane 2011a, p. 61 ).

It can be argued that Klumpp and Teichler’s concept of HEPROs questions the static perception of an administrative academic divide when focusing on functions and tasks instead. A different understanding is presented by the recent concept of “third space professionals” (Whitchurch 2008b, 2010a ) which creates an independent sphere for an emerging group of university personnel whose professional identity is neither strictly academic nor strictly administrative. However, this group does not enter the academic space, according to Whitchurch. Whereas the concept of the “para-academic” (Macfarlane 2011a) strictly remains in the academic sphere referring to the “unbundling” of the holistic concept of academic practice and subdivision of academic work by Kinser (2002, p. 13) into “para-academic roles” (Coaldrake 2000, p. 21), Macfarlane argues that the academic all-rounder is disappearing. According to Macfarlane, the rise of the para-academics is a result of the growing numbers and up-skilling of administrative and professional support staff and a parallel de-skilling of the all-round academic (Macfarlane 2011a, pp. 62–63).

Most studies analysing the evolution of administrative university staff situate HEPROs in university administration (Gumport and Pusser 1995; Leslie and Rhoades 1995; Gornitzka et al. 1998; Blümel et al. 2010). Analysing the shift in administration in Norwegian universities Gornitzka et al. (1998, p. 26) identified the emerging group of HEPROs as part of the “silent managerial revolution” in university administration: the replacement of clerks by administrative officers and managers. Omitting the technical terms for the new university personnel has created numerous denotations: Rhoades refers to the activists of the silent managerial revolution as administrators or “managerial professionals” (Rhoades 1998) , in a publication on student services as “support professionals” (Rhoades 2001, p. 628); in a comparative study on quality management HEPROs in the United States are called “managerial professors” but in Austria “administrators” (Rhoades and Sporn 2002b, p. 381); Rhoades and Sporn (2002a, p. 385) introduce the term “non-academic professionals”, and refer to non-academic professionals and academic professionals as “administrators”. Also, using the terminology of “managers” for “academic and non-academic managers” or “woman academic managers” alike (Deem 1998 ) or changing the perception of them towards “new professionals” (Gornall 1999) with an active role between strategy and innovation (Kallenberg 2007) adds several aspects to the overall picture of the HEPROs and their tasks.

Currently, Klumpp and Teichler’s “higher education professionals” seems to be the most advanced conception. It is the temporary endpoint of a rich body of research accumulated in the past two decades, mainly from Australia, Great Britain, Norway and the United States. Two, partly separate, partly interwoven trails can be identified: first, a quantitative research trail which grasps the bureaucratisation of universities and growing numbers of academic and administrative positions; second, a qualitative research trail which sheds light on administrative positions in a shifting working environment and challenging relationships between academic and administrative personal and HEPROs. From the rich body of literature qualitative aspects of functions, tasks and roles are extracted and analysed. In the last section, the interface between academic staff and HEPROs will be discussed. Therefore, the overlap of functions, tasks and roles of academic staff is analysed as an outlook for further research. Some evidence can be presented for the shifts in tasks, functions and roles from academic staff to HEPROs.

2 Higher Education and University Personnel at Stake

2.1 A Sketch of the Bigger Picture

The post-industrial environment, namely the “knowledge society ” (Drucker 1968 ; Bell 1973 ; Stehr 1994) increases the pressures on universities to develop expertise (Brint 1994; Stehr and Grundmann 2010) in order to respond to the rising expectations of relevance, stratification of higher education institutions due to the quality discussion, the substantive changes in curricula, the importance of teaching and learning in a mass higher education system or the importance of lifelong education (Teichler 2007a, pp. 18–19). Recent developments in higher education draw attention to support and service functions of teaching and research, tasks formerly looked at as marginal by academics, now becoming constituent and essential for the success of teaching and research. Gornitzka and Larsen (2004) studied the process of incremental change of the administrative work force for Norwegian universities and found that “in some respects it corresponds to the type of change that results from stable and ordinary responses to environmental change” (Gornitzka and Larsen 2004, p. 468). Organisational change as a response to changing environmental conditions is also an issue for Dill (1982, 1996, 1999 ); Rhoades (1984) ; DiMaggio and Powell (1991); Sporn (2001); Gumport and Pusser (1995); Leslie and Rhoades (1995); Finkelstein and Schuster (2001) ; Harloe and Perry (2005); Teichler (2007a, b). Drivers of this development are:

  • The growing autonomy of higher education institutions and new forms of governance in higher education (e.g. Braun and Merrien 1999; Amaral et al. 2003; Kehm and Lanzendorf 2005, 2006, 2007 ; de Boer et al. 2007);

  • Commercialisation of science (e.g. Slaughter and Rhoades 1993 ; Slaughter and Leslie 1997; Coaldrake 2000; Münch 2006, 2007, 2009);

  • Massification of higher education (e.g. Trow 1974, 1999)—although regarded as an overestimated factor by Teichler (1998);

  • Globalisation and internationalisation (e.g. Altbach and Teichler 2001; Teichler 2004); and

  • The Bologna ProcessFootnote 1 with its policy-driven action lines, e.g. promotion of mobility or of comparable systems of quality assurance (Bologna Declaration 1999; Prag Communiqué 2001; Berlin Communiqué 2003; Neave and Amaral 2008).

Part of the institutional responses to the challenges from outside is the creation of new positions and functions, e.g. for Germany in the areas of quality enhancement, curriculum design, etc. and fostering the growth of already-existing functions, e.g. for Germany: research coordinators, student counselling, internationalisation, etc. of HEPROs. Also, support units for rectors or presidents, vice-rectors or vice-presidents, deans, etc. are being enlarged or newly created.

When analysing the emerging group of HEPROs, one also has to keep in mind that national specificities have a path dependency (Teichler 2007a, p. 16). This becomes evident when dealing with the staff structure of universities, e.g. countries with administrative personnel being employed by the university or being civil servants or both. Staff structure is an issue of power as well. In the United States, non-academic administrators, not only in top management but also in middle-management positions, obtain considerable power (e.g. Becher and Kogan 1992 ; Rhoades 1998 ; Middlehurst 2004). A contrary case is Norway, where HEPROs “portray their role as ‘low-key’ in the interface with academics and especially in relation to elected academic leaders ” (Gornitzka and Larsen 2004, p. 464).

2.2 University Personnel in the Arena

The need expressed by Rhoades to “overcome the prevailing simple dichotomy of administrative versus academic staff” (Rhoades 1998, p. 116; also Lewis and Altbach 1995) is still a contemporary need, although “higher education institutions have become multi-professional organisations” (Henkel 2005, p. 163). The organisational change of universities and the accompanying functional differentiation of university personnel have led to a mutation of the dichotomy into a trias, at least. The heuristic approach of professionalisation (e.g. Gornitzka and Larsen 2004; Klumpp and Teichler 2008; Whitchurch 2009 ) of the trias has gained momentum in the past years as explanatory for the differentiation of university personnel or of management in public domains in general (e.g. Evetts 2003 , 2009; Noordegraaf 2007; Blümel et al. 2011). Klumpp and Teichler (2008) added the group of HEPROs to administrative and academic personnel .Footnote 2 The term HEPROs has made its way as being used for all professionals working at a university, including professors, in the exploratory concept of “borderless professionals” (Middlehurst 2010). As finding a common terminology has proven to be rather difficult, Whitchurch (2008b) suggests the “third space” between the administrative-professional and academic spheres of activity. Whether the identity-based endeavour of a new space will unlock the Gordian knot in overcoming the differences of academic and administrative realms has to remain an open question for the time being.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to discuss and agree on a terminology in order to describe, analyse, and understand the areas of work inside universities and respective positions. In doing so, the three terms academic and administrative personnel and HEPROs are used in the following. The explanation of HEPROs given by Klumpp and Teichler or the concept of a third space by Whitchurch suggest varying hybrid or blended positions and functions between “traditionally” academic and administrative tasks. Therefore, a differentiated analysis of these hybrid or blended positions and functions requires the discussion of the development of positions, functions and activities of academic and administrative personnel. As will be shown below, many researchers approach the issue from the angle of expansion of administrative tasks and bureaucratisation of universities. However, this is just one side of the coin.

The growing demands for organisational development and professionalisation of university governance at central and departmental level have been identified as causes for the evolution and differentiation of functions and tasks in the area between administration, management, research and teaching. Teichler (2005) analyses four basic areas of tasks and functions:

  1. 1.

    Preparation and support of university management: e.g. assistants to the rector/president, dean, head of a unit in central administration.

  2. 2.

    Services: e.g. librarians, career consultants.

  3. 3.

    New hybrid sphere between management and services: e.g. evaluation officers, academic controlling, head of the international office, coordinators of study programmes, managers of continuing education.

  4. 4.

    Differentiation of research and teaching functions: e.g. full time student counsellors, curriculum design, coordinators of research clusters.

The varying tasks and functions shown in the list stress the need for a multi-dimensional approach to define HEPROs.

Kehm et al. (2008b) show that coordination and organisational development is only one part of the job description and expertise; others are preparation and execution of university management decisions; information generation, processing and distribution, making use of existing knowledge, student learning and student development, and administrative activities. Kehm et al. argue that differentiation of tasks and functions are typical for a professionalisation process: the evolution of university governance breaks down the formerly clear-cut borders of services and management and makes them highly permeable (Kehm et al. 2008b, p. 199). According to them, for Germany, at least four lines of evolution can be identified:

  1. 1.

    For already long-existing tasks and functions in administration, higher qualifications are required, and the job description is altering as well, e.g. clerical staff in charge of student records.

  2. 2.

    Growing requirements in occupations formerly having a rather low level of differentiation make them subject to a process of professionalisation, e.g. student counselling.

  3. 3.

    Tasks and activities, which used to be part of other job descriptions, are becoming full-time positions, e.g. planning and design of study programmes.

  4. 4.

    New tasks and activities are created in universities, e.g. transfer of knowledge and technology or fundraising (Kehm et al. 2008b).

The combination of the analytical frameworks of Teichler and Kehm et al. constitute a complex matrix. The different elements will be visible in the following. Nevertheless, it is evident that the sphere of HEPROs does not yet exist as such. Whitchurch (2008b ) has made a valuable first approach in defining the “third space”. Unfortunately, many of the research results of the past two decades remain outside the “third space” and its facility for interaction with wider contexts. Moreover, the majority of studies focus on the expansion and differentiation of administrative activities, tasks and functions, while the differentiation of teaching and research functions as described by Teichler (2005) and Kehm et al. (2008b) is missing.

3 From Quantitative to Qualitative Approaches: Bureaucratisation, Identity and Professionalisation

3.1 Quantitative Approaches Towards Academic and Administrative Personnel

The development sketched above has substantial influence on universities. The dichotomy of academic and administrative spheres prevails, as administration and bureaucratisation are regarded as threatening the academic sphere. For the United States, Leslie and Rhoades (1995) conducted a literature analysis. Referring to Bergmann (1991 ), Leslie and Rhoades interpret the growth of expenditures for presidents, deans, and their assistants compared with teaching budgets in the 1980s as an acceleration of a four-decade pattern. Nationwide, the expenditure for administrative costsFootnote 3 per full-time equivalent student in the 1980s was even higher. Referring to Halstead (1991) the share of the so-called education expenditures spent on administrationFootnote 4 increased by 2.7 % for all public universities , while the instruction share declined by 2 % nationally between 1973/1974 and 1985/1986. With respect to Massy and Warner’s (1990, 1991), evaluation of the Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS)/Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) for the period from 1975 to 1986, Leslie and Rhoades add that administrative costs increased faster than academic costs in all higher education sectorsFootnote 5: per year, in real terms, the median rate of increase for administrative and support expenditures was 4 %, but it was less than 3 % for academic expenditure (Leslie and Rhoades 1995, p. 187). Leslie and Rhoades calculated the changes in the number and salaries of administrators using Equal Employment Opportunity Commission data from 1975 to 1985. Data indicate a 6 % growth in full-time faculty; an 18 % growth of the so-called executive, administrative, and managerial employees; and a 61 % growth for the so-called other professionals, who are degree-holding employees often accounted for in administrative categories. In the following 5 years, from 1985 to 1990, the increase was 9, 14 and 28 %, respectively. Academic personnel did grow at a slower rate than secretarial and clerical staff. A decline was observed among service and maintenance personnel (Leslie and Rhoades 1995, pp. 187–188). Between 1971/1972 and 1984/1985 a general decline of salaries was noted. The average real salaries of faculty and administrators declined by 16 and 13.1 %, respectively. Data provided by Hansen and Guidugli (1990) and Levy (1990) who analysed the disaggregated figures for administrators, reveal increasing salary dispersion among administrators, as well as among academic personnel (Leslie and Rhoades 1995, p. 188).

Further statistical data on the administrative growth in higher education in the United States, more specifically in the State of California, is provided by Gumport and Pusser (1995). They did an analysis of the University of California System for the 25 years period from 1966/1967 to 1991/1992. It was a period of considerable growth: expenditure for the nine campuses, system-wide administration, and auxiliary enterprises taken together was just more than US$ 3.7 billion in 1966–1967 and just more than US$ 9.8 billion in 1991–1992. Altogether this is an increase of 164 % (in constant 1993 dollars). Student full-time equivalents rose from 79,293 (1966/1967) to 156,371 (1991/1992), an increase of just over 97 %. Also, the number of employees grew. The permanently budgeted personnel increased by 104 % from 33,305 (1966/1967) to 68,024 (1991/1992; Gumport and Pusser 1995, pp. 494–495). The growth of expenditure was not the same for all staff categories: the general category administration increased by more than 400 % more rapidly than instruction with 175 %. The total system expenditure shows an increase of 164 % in comparison. The number of positions in administration did grow nearly two and a half times faster than positions in the category instruction. Even during state recession between 1986/1987 and 1991/1992 the number of positions in the category administration increased twice as fast as the number of positions in instruction. For the entire University of California System in 1966/1967, approximately 6 dollars were spent on instruction for each dollar spent on administration compared with approximately 3 dollars spent on instruction for each dollar spent on administration in 1991/1992 (Gumport and Pusser 1995, p. 500).

A third account of the growth of the higher education system in the United States from 1976 to1995 is presented by Rhoades and Sporn (2002a, see also Rhoades and Sporn 2002b) for full-time and part-time positions. While academic staff in relation to other professional employees represented 69 % in 1976 it decreased to 61 % in 1995 (Rhoades and Sporn 2002a, pp. 17–18). Rhoades and Sporn further differentiate administrative positions in executive/administrators and support professionals/managerial professionals.

All three accounts from the United States show a considerable growth of the group of administrative personnel for the indicated periods. Gumport and Pusser consider the dramatic increase of administration as “evidence of bureaucratic accretion with respect to expenditures in the University of California” (Gumport and Pusser 1995, pp. 500–501) while Leslie and Rhoades (1995, p. 189) stress that it is crucial to understand the causes for the increase of administrative costs. Unfortunately, data is aggregated at a very high level and tells nothing about the “nature of or the explanations for spiralling administrative costs”. The three studies show how the phenomenon of administrative growth was grasped as bureaucratisation, reasons and explanations were sought and a trend towards differentiation of administrative personnel became evident.

Another view on growing numbers of administrative staff was added by Visakorpi (1996). In Finnish universities, due to a perceived rise of the administrative burden of academic staff, the latter asked for and supported the increase of administrative staff—this pattern continues even in times of budget cuts, especially at departmental level (Visakorpi 1996, pp. 38–39). Gornitzka et al. (1998, p. 42) found a similar ambivalence among faculty concerning the striving for less administrative work for themselves and growing numbers of administrative staff in Norwegian universities. Based on official statistics by the Ministry of Education from 1994 Visakorpi shows that, from 1987 to 1992, teaching staff increased by 5.5 %, total non-teaching staff by 20 % and administrative staff by 39 %. The percentage of teaching staff in relation to other personnel altered from 52.7 % in 1987 to 49.3 % in 1993 (Visakorpi 1996, p. 39 ). Blümel et al. (2010, p. 159), referring to the data of Visakorpi, found a rise of 39 % of the group of non-academic staff: mainly due to a considerable rise of highly qualified administrative personnel and a decline of technical and administrative staff with lower levels of qualifications by 11.8 %. With respect to many new tasks of the modern university Visakorpi assumes: “Non-teaching or non-academic personnel will increasingly be academic; they will need more and more education, including languages, as special skills” (Visakorpi 1996, p. 40).

Gornitzka et al., in the publication Bureaucratisation of Universities (1998), analyse the expansion of administrative and academic personnel at four Norwegian universities and specify the trends of administrative differentiation. Data was drawn from the Norwegian civil servants’ data register and the research personnel register. In addition, several surveys were conducted: a survey among all staff members with the rank of assistant professor and higher at the universities of Bergen, Oslo, Trondheim, Tromso and 50 interviews with senior administrative and academic staff at the universities of Bergen and Oslo (Gornitzka et al. 1998, pp. 22–23). From 1987 to 1995 the number of total administrative staff, e.g. clerical positions and administrative officers and managers, increased by 58 %. Academic positions increased by 48 % during the same period. The person-years performed by administrative officers and managers more than doubled within less than a decade (from 584 person-years in 1987 to 1,469 person-years in 1995). Also, from 1991 onwards the numbers of professional administrators (administrative officers and managers) outnumbered the clerical positions (Gornitzka et al. 1998, p. 25). Gornitzka et al. also looked at the qualifications and types of positions of administrative officers and managers. In 1993, half of the administrative officers and managers held a university degree, and about 15 % were employed in an academic position (Gornitzka et al. 1998, p. 26). Gornitzka et al. also evaluated the time academic staff spent for administrative activities. In 1991, academic staff spent on average 17 % of the total working day on administration. This percentage remained almost unchanged compared with 1981 and 1970, but shows a slight increase compared with 14 % in 1966 (Gornitzka et al. 1998, p. 27).

The growth of academic and administrative personnel was analysed in more detail in the publication Towards Professionalisation? Restructuring of Administrative Work Force in Universities (Gornitzka and Larsen 2004). The data was drawn from the Norwegian civil servants statistics and data from interviews conducted at the University of Oslo. Extending the analysis at the four universities in Norway, Gornitzka and Larsen found that an additional 1,000 person-years (from 1,500 to more than 2,500) in administrative positions were established from 1987 to 1999. The most striking is the growth rate of positions of higher administrative staff with 215 % from 1987 to 1999. In the same period, the number of positions for clerical staff declined by 28 % (Gornitzka and Larsen 2004, p. 458). The number of administrators with a university degree grew as well.

Germany can be described as a latecomer in discussing the evolution of university personnel. Similar to the United States (Gumport and Pusser 1995; Leslie and Rhoades 1995), Finland (Visakorpi 1996 ), and Norway (Gornitzka et al. 1998; Gornitzka and Larsen 2004), Rhoades and Sporn (2002a), Krücken et al. (2009) and Blümel et al. (2010) found for Germany a general growth of staff at higher education institutions. In Germany, the relative proportion of administrative (63 %) and academic personnel (37 %) is almost three to two (Rhoades and Sporn 2002a, p. 13). No time series data is available that differentiates among administrative positions. Data on administrative positions separate top-level administrators (im höheren Dienst; Rhoades and Sporn 2002a) holding a university degree from those lower level positions for persons without a university degree (nicht im höheren Dienst). University-trained administrators in central administration, technical positions, library, and other positions represented about 4 % of all administrative positions. Looking only at universities, academic personnel grew by 7.3 % while administrative personnel slightly declined by 0.1 % from 1992 to 1998. Substantive numbers of growth can be shown for Universities of Applied Sciences (Fachhochschulen), where positions for academic personnel grew by 24 %, and administrative positions increased by 20 % (Rhoades and Sporn 2002a, p. 14). Rhoades and Sporn concluded that “administrative costs and positions are significant in German higher education” (Rhoades and Sporn 2002a).

Blümel et al. (2010) provide a more elaborated and detailed picture on numbers of academic and administrative personnel for German higher education based on the analysis of data on higher education personnel from 1992 to 2007, provided by the national HIS ICEland Database. Overall, numbers of personnel increased in higher education institutions in Germany. Rather surprisingly the increase is due to a growth of academic personnel by 28.3 %, while administrative staff increased by 1.1 %. With respect to the latter, from 1992 to 2007, a shift from lower to higher grades becomes evident, The growth of administrative personnel in the higher grade (höherer Dienst) is most striking in administrative function/HEPROs (90.1 %) compared with library services (10 %), technical staff (12.5 %) and other staff (33.8 %; Blümel et al. 2010, pp. 164–165). With regard to 1992–2007 comparison of higher grade staff in the same four areas of work, the ratio provides further details on the shift towards the administrative function of HEPROs. The ratio increased from 55.3 to 67 % while the ratio of library (14.3–10 %), technical (21.6–15.4 %) and other staff (8.9–7.6 %) decreased (Blümel et al. 2010, p. 166). Blümel et al. (2010) did not find any evidence for an expansion of non-academic staff in relation to academic staff. However, they found a shift from lower to higher positions of non-academic personnel , similar to the findings of Gornitzka et al. (1998).

For Germany, the findings above can be complemented by quantitative results from the study The Role of the New Higher Education Professions for the Redesign of Teaching and Studying (HEPRO) from 2010 (Kehm et al. 2010 ; Schneijderberg and Merkator 2011). In a survey at 11 universitiesFootnote 6, a ratio of HEPROs to professors was found which is on average 63–100 (Kehm et al. 2010; Schneijderberg and Merkator 2011). The majority of HEPROs is female (60 %) and 88 % hold a university degree—about one quarter a Ph.D.—while 7 % graduated from a Fachhochschule. Only 5 % passed a vocational training and were promoted into a position in the upper grade during their career in university administration (Praktikeraufstieg). The disciplinary background of HEPROs varies: 39 % come from the humanities; 30 % from social sciences and 26 % from natural sciences and mathematics. Many have experience in research and teaching; 46 % of the HEPROs hold academic positions; 74 % are employed in a permanent position; 55 % have a permanent contract and 70 % work full-time. More than 500 different names of organisational units were mentioned in the questionnaire. The organisational localisation is rather heterogeneous: 32 % work on department level, about 25 % in central administration and about the same percentage could not be situated at all. The units HEPROs are assigned to were established in 2004, on average. About two-thirds of all respondents reported that the unit, at least partially, takes charge of new activities, functions and tasks (Kehm et al. 2010, pp. 31–32).

The research by Gornitzka et al. (1998) and Gornitzka and Larsen (2004) on Norwegian Universities mark the turning point of the discussion about bureaucratisation of higher education and growth of administrative and academic staff and the results of the study on HEPROs in Germany mark a temporary endpoint of the quantitative research trail. The mixed methods approach of Gornitzka and Larsen (2004) expanded the theoretical basis from organisational theory to the sociology of professions. The mixed-methods approach and theoretical underpinning by the sociology of organisation and sociology of professions have substantial influence on the recent enquiry about HEPROs from Germany (Klumpp and Teichler 2008; Blümel et al. 2010; Kehm et al. 2010 ; Schneijderberg and Merkator 2011).

Qualitative research which sheds light on administrative positions, functions and tasks in a shifting working environment will be explored in the Sect. 3.2. Starting from a basic analysis of administration further aspects and features will be integrated which indicate a shift towards an overlap of administrative and academic tasks and functions.

3.2 Qualitative Approaches Towards Administration and Higher Education Professionals

Administration is characterised by at least three aspects: first as an act or process, second as an activity and third as a definition of a group of people. As an act or process administration is used for the management of a government or large organisation. Administration as an activity of a government or large organisation expresses the exercise of its powers and duties. Administration also stands for a group of people who manage or direct an organisation. All three aspects are important when trying to understand and define the evolution of administrative and academic university staff individually and the relationship between them (Clark 1984 ; Becher and Kogan 1992 ; Barnett and Middlehurst 1993 ; Boyer et al. 1994 ; Lewis and Altbach 1995; Gumport and Pusser 1995; Leslie and Rhoades 1995; El-Khawas 1996; Lockwood 1996; Gornitzka et al. 1998; McInnis 1992, 1998; Coaldrake 2000; Middlehurst 2000; Rhoades and Sporn 2002a, b; Kogan and Teichler 2007a, b ; Teichler 2008; Krücken 2009, Blümel et al. 2010; Kehm et al. 2010 ; Macfarlane 2011a).

Lockwood (1996), similar to many of the authors named above, starts by situating administrative staff in contrast to academic staff in the institutional context. In the institutional setting of the university, the responsibility is placed mainly on the shoulders of academically qualified individuals in a comparatively non-hierarchical and pluralistic structure of both work and management. Just as institutionalised is the academics focus on peer groups outside the institutions, which tends to be stronger than the inward orientation. The institutionalisation of positions, appraisal and power encountered by administrative staff is more varied as compared with academic staff. Lockwood identifies six characteristics of the administrative model in Great Britain which is rather similar to the situation in Germany (e.g. Bosetzky and Heinrich 1989, pp. 53–54 ; Naschold and Bogumil 2000), and which is slowly but constantly eroding:

  • Administration is recognised as an entity similar to other units in the organisational structure,

  • Careers are structured according to the public service,

  • A high proportion of administrative staff is permanently employed,Footnote 7

  • Staff have high commitment to the employing institution and low external orientation,

  • In the case of Great Britain, the majority of personnel in administration are generalists, and

  • Although there is an assumption of impartiality of advise and objectivity in information functions of administrative personnel, the administrative activities include decision-making power. (Lockwood 1996, pp. 44–45).

In Germany, a twofold system persists. For routine administrative activities the majority of staff does a vocational training. For administrative activities requiring some decision making and operational independence staff with a higher education degree is employed. The proportion of the latter group in administration is growing (Klumpp and Teichler 2008; Blümel et al. 2010). Lockwood (1996) issues a warning that the on-going erosion of the internal administrative model described above and resulting from shifts in the intra-administrative interface will cause a loss of the expertise of dedicated generalists.

The perception of the development of administration in universities and the growth in numbers of HEPROs are closely connected to the concept of bureaucratisation (Gumport and Pusser 1995; Leslie and Rhoades 1995; Gornitzka et al. 1998; Blümel et al. 2010). Gornitzka et al. (1998) outline the three concepts of administrative bureaucratisation with, first, the classical Weberian type of rational administration, second, the perversion with bureaucracy becoming a purpose in its own right, and, third, bureaucratisation occurring due to the growth of an organisation. In the Weberian view, bureaucratic work is organised and conducted according to formal rules within a set hierarchy, which itself is based on a rational legal authority. Staff is recruited based on formal qualifications and competences to fulfil designated working roles and functions.

For analysing the development of universities, the third concept of bureaucratisation is significant. This is the case when administrative personnel is regarded as part of the organisation that does not carry out the primary functions of research and teaching but is responsible for regulation, supervision and support of the people executing the primary working tasks. Consequently, bureaucratisation in this sense occurs when staff positions for administration increase more than those for teaching and research within the institution (Gornitzka et al. 1998, p. 23). The explanation may apply to strictly administrative work, e.g. secretary or processing work, accounting, etc.; however, it becomes disputable when considering services constituent for research and teaching provided by personnel not primarily in charge of research and teaching. Only when arguing on the basis of the dichotomy of academic and non-academic personnel, the clear-cut conceptualisation persists. When differentiating in positions and roles (also done by Gornitzka et al. 1998, p. 24; Gornitzka and Larsen 2004, pp. 456–457), the bureaucratisation concept gets blurred (e.g. services with direct influence on teaching and learning, e.g. HEPROs giving courses on general qualifications, personal presentation skills or how to write a job application). As an example related to research, institutional research (Fincher 1978a, b ; Terenzini 1993; Delaney 1997 ; Teodorescu 2006; Auferkorte-Michaelis 2008) can be pointed out, at least for the case of Germany.

Kogan (2007) argues that changing tasks in higher education have led to changes in internal power relationships among administrative and academic staff (see also Clegg 2007, p. 409), which includes a precipitation of academic hybrid roles (see also Macfarlane 2010, p. 63). Kogan describes the responses of universities to external changes as reshaping of organisational and power structures. Many of the changes have been camouflaged describing them as bureaucratisation. According to Kogan, bureaucratisation is being used in two different ways. On one hand, it means a shift from individual and academic power within the often “mythic collegium” (Kogan 2007, p. 162) to the system or institution of the university. On the other, it means a growth of power, including the growth in numbers of non-academic administration staff. Kogan identifies the first as the major phenomenon and the second as “a possible but not invariant consequence” of this phenomenon (Kogan 2007, p. 162). The question of power shifts might be related to a rise of sheer numbers of administrative staff but it could as well be sought in the assignment and position of administrative personnel (Lockwood 1996), their higher level of qualification and the creation of new areas of work and/or development of areas of work in university management and the organisation of work in central and non-central units (e.g. Leslie and Rhoades 1995; Rhoades and Sporn 2002a, b; Gornitzka and Larsen 2004; Rosser 2004 ; Klumpp and Teichler 2008).

The questions raised and issues addressed will be discussed when defining administrative personnel, functions, tasks and activities. The definition of administrative personnel is used as a vehicle to extract aspects for further characterising the role of HEPROs. The role of HEPROs, the meaning and implications of administrative activities and the changes in internal power relationships of administrative and academic staff will become apparent in the following part.

3.3 A Collage of Features of Higher Education Professionals

Finding definitions of who belongs to administration was and is like squaring the circle. Scholars dealing with university administration are rather deflating the endeavour with creating publication titles such as The Deadly Dull Issue of University Administration? Good Governance, Managerialism and Organising Academic Work (Dearlove 1998) or Fear and Loathing in University Staffing: The Case of Australian Academic and General Staff (Dobson and Conway 2003). So, the extensive accounting of staff positions will be complemented by discussing definitions of positions and roles in university administration. Official classifications and schemes give a clue, but fail to give a satisfying picture. However, as Gumport and Pusser point out, for an analysis of administration static accounting misses a substantial part of administration and can only provide a global view of an institutional support category (Gumport and Pusser 1995, pp. 496–497; see also Leslie and Rhoades 1995, p. 189). Arguing from the point of view of expenditures and positions Gumport and Pusser show that an all-encompassing understanding of administrative functions is necessary, not being limited by reporting categories. They encourage research of subcategories, e.g. when operationalising the subcategory academic administration , which “contains expenditures which are identified as administrative support and management functions in the primary missions. It includes expenditures for academic deans, associate and assistant deans and their staffs, travel, supplies, and expenditure” (Gumport and Pusser 1995, p. 497). Practical reasons encourage the use of traditional categories of office and personnel when operationalising administration. Items such as functions and indefinite administrative complexities are difficult to operationalyse based on the available data (Gumport and Pusser 1995).

An alternative approach towards defining administration and administrative positions the exclusive approach was chosen by Gornitzka et al. (1998) for Norwegian universities. Gornitzka et al. (1998) emphasise that the dichotomy of academic and non-academic positions is too simple for an in-depth analysis. They stress that “types of non-academic positions have to be differentiated so as to single out those whose primary task is university administration ” (Gornitzka et al. 1998, p. 24). Therefore, positions categorised as “technical auxiliary staff, such as laboratory assistants, engineers and university librarians” (Gornitzka et al. 1998) and maintenance staff, such as cleaning personnel, gardeners and janitors are excluded. University administration in the Norwegian context is constituted by “two basic groups of non-academic positions: clerical staff and higher administrative staff [sometimes Gornitzka et al. use ‘officers’ instead of staff; note CS], the latter being the core administrators at universities ranging from consultants, middle and senior managers” (Gornitzka et al. 1998). Still, Gornitzka et al. hint to the fact “that in many instances clerical functions in fact verge on being administrative activities” (Gornitzka et al. 1998) which makes it necessary to include them in the university administration category. In a later publication, Gornitzka and Larsen (2004, p. 456) define non-academic staff as technical auxiliary staff, e.g. laboratory assistants, engineers, and maintenance, e.g. gardeners, janitors, cleaning staff. Administrative staff is divided into clerical staff and professional administrative staff/higher administrative staff.

The approach of exclusion was also used by Blümel et al. (2010), when analysing the numbers of administrative and academic staff in German higher education using official statistics. The rather rigid German status system Footnote 8 has four categories: lower grade (einfacher Dienst), middle grade (mittlerer Dienst), upper grade (gehobener Dienst) and higher grade (höherer Dienst) of civil serviceFootnote 9 according to educational background (Statistisches Bundesamt 2009). Normally, technical administrative personnel with vocational education are employed in the lower grades (e.g. secretaries, clerical staff), while university staff holding at least a master’s degree or the pre-Bologna equivalent of Diplom or Magister Artium get assigned to salary groups in the higher grades. Blümel et al. (2010) refer to the shortcomings of the definitions and statistics of the Federal Statistical Office in categorising non-academic staff. Similar to Gornitzka et al. (1998), they criticise that the dichotomy of academic and non-academic staff is an over-simplification. Surveying non-academic staff only in the functional areas in central and non-central administration of universities or university libraries does not provide a satisfying answer of who are HEPROs and what they are doing. Locked in the four categories of the German status system Blümel et al. (2010, pp. 155–156), similar to Rhoades and Sporn (2002a, pp. 12–15), can only focus on the higher grade or top-level in administration. Consequently, Blümel et al. criticise the missing differentiation in relation to formal roles of technical-administrative staff referring to occupation and organisational units, which results in non-academic staff being rather invisible for the internal and external public.

A performance and power-related definition of roles of administrative staff for Great Britain is presented by Lockwood (1996) who indicates three types of administrative staff having different modes of influence in areas such as academic, financial, social or site management: the clerk, assigned to the recording of an activity, the administrator, being in charge of the organisation of an activity within a realm of decision set by a regularly present authority, and, the manager, who’s managing activity takes place within broad policy guidelines. Lockwood argues that the mode of operation depends on the degree of responsibility and the involvement of the administrative staff in a task. For all three types, the main block of work is the performance of a relatively standard set of duties such as the provision of information and advice, implementing decisions, which contains tasks such as producing committee papers, distribution of agendas, taking minutes and the communication and recording of the decision making. The assignments are budgeting, planning, staff or student records. In this set of general duties, the power of decision remains with the decision makers, which are only very marginally influenced by administrative staff. In a second set of work, administrative personnel performs the same set of duties plus decision making and implementation, quasi as a kind of routine management. Assignments are the organisation of archives, audits, businesses, ceremonials or routine maintenance of buildings. A third set of activities is dedicated to more specific working activities, e.g. curricular development, research administration or teaching methods (Lockwood 1996, p. 47).

Rosser (2004 ) contributes to the discussion on HEPROs by focusing on the aspect of missing recognition. Pointing to a previous study by herself from 2000 she declares “mid-level leaders” to be “the unsung professionals of the academy” (Rosser 2004, p. 317). “Unsung” points to a missing recognition of the contribution of HEPROs, and to the “commitment, training, and adherence to high standards of performance and excellence in their areas of expertise” (Rosser 2004). Rosser identifies mid-level leaders in higher education in the United States as an essential group “whose administrative roles and functions support the goals and mission of the academic enterprise” (Rosser 2004, p. 318). Mid-level leaders coordinate and direct administrative units. They play a key role within the traditional service areas of academic support, business/administrative services, external affairs, and student services (Rosser 2004, p. 319). In her study on the quality of mid-level leaders’ work life, satisfaction, morale and their intentions to leave, mid-level leaders were included who are classified as academic or non-academic support staff. Not being faculty, mid-level leaders are referred to as a non-exempt, non-contract group of mid-level administrative staff. They report to a senior-level administrator or dean, and are categorised as administrators, professionals, technicians, or specialists. Normally, these positions are differentiated by functional specialisation, skills, training and experiences (Rosser 2004, p. 324).

The invisibility of the large body of university administrators, and their relationship with academic staff is an issue in Australia (Conway 2000a, b; Dobson and Conway 2003; Graham 2009, 2010). Not depending on official and university statistics and their categorical limitations Dobson and Conway (2003, p. 125) give voice to the administrators’ misery of being regarded “as non-persons who do non-work” who “do not want to be defined as a negative or in oppositional terms”. Dobson and Conway assume that this invisibility is based on missing reputation of the work done by administrative, technical and other support staff (Dobson and Conway 2003, p. 124). Looking beyond the question of reputation the categories and terminology for administrative, technical and other support staff is stated to be “general staff” by ConwayFootnote 10 (2000a, b). Administrators are defined as a sub-set of general staff, whose main duty it is to support the “core business activities of teaching, learning and research; those who work in organisational support positions (for example, finance and human resources)” (2000a, b); the term administrators applies for academic managers as well (2000a, b). Consequently, “general staff” is used as a common term in a later publication by Dobson and Conway (2003, p. 126).

Nevertheless, the term general staff is not as institutionalised in Australia as stated by the authors. For example, McInnis (1998, p. 162) uses in his quantitative studies the terminology “administrators” and “professional administrators” (McInnis 1998, p. 168), which according to Dobson and Conway would be “a sub-set of general staff” in the Australian context. In later publications, e.g. on the undergraduate student experience, McInnis switches to “support structures” operated by “a substantial group of highly professional specialists” (McInnis 2002, p. 187). This friction in the use of terminology can be clearly seen as an ambiguity based on academic use and professional associations’Footnote 11 efforts to find a suitable terminology (Clegg 2007).

The discussion in Australia presented above has provided considerable input to and was critiqued in the research and writings of WhitchurchFootnote 12. In the past years, Whitchurch was one of the most productive authors of literature on HEPROs (Whitchurch 2004, 2006a, b, 2008a, b, 2009, 2010a, b, c; Whitchurch et al. 2009, 2010 ; Whitchurch and Gordon 2010; Gordon and Whitchurch 2010). Whitchurch started with an account of changes in university management in Great Britain (Whitchurch 2004) and analysed the “inside out university” (Whitchurch 2006a, pp. 161–163): “Like an amoeba, the ‘Inside Out University’ has functional elements that may split, coalesce and modify as needs and circumstances evolve” (Whitchurch 2006a). According to her, the emergence of a “twin dynamic ” (Whitchurch 2008a, p. 376) comprising a process of increased functional specialisation and a blurring of boundaries between activities across professional spaces has to be respected:

Three features of changing administrative identities are considered. First, traditional regulatory and ‘civil service’-type roles have been joined by roles requiring specialist expertise and knowledge management, where independent and even political judgements are called for, often involving decisions around levels of risk. Second, new specialisations have been created within functional areas as support services have become more sophisticated (for instance marketing, hitherto an offshoot of student recruitment and/or external relations, has become an activity in its own right). Third, the boundaries between what are increasingly termed ‘professional service’ staff and academic staff, with or without administrative and managerial responsibilities, have become less clear-cut, and their activities interlinked in increasingly complex ways. This has created ‘hybrid’ forms of staff, with a mix of roles and backgrounds. (Whitchurch 2004, p. 283)

Professionalisation results in the establishment of bodies of knowledge and standards of professional practice. In a literature review done for the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, Whitchurch (2006b) considers the term “professional managers ” to be the most adequate for HEPROs. She distinguishes “professional managers” from “managers”, “administrators”, “non-academic staff”, “academic related staff”, “professional staff” and “support staff”, terms used in official classifications of university administration (Whitchurch 2006b, p. 5 ). She suggests the use of “professional managers ” because the professional requirements for the role of this (un)specific group are neither adequately labelled with “administration” nor with “management” (Whitchurch 2006b, pp. 6–7). In later publications on the identity of HEPROs, Whitchurch defines “professional staff” in management on department level or student services as “general managers”, in human resources and finances as “specialist professions”, and in research and quality management as “‘niche’ specialist” (Whitchurch 2008b, p. 380) or uses the definition “managerial professionals” introduced by Rhoades (1998) (Whitchurch 2009, p. 407).

Very early, Whitchurch (2004) focused on the issue of identity. Her approach is based on the identity concept of the third space where new identities and roles are being created: the “third space, [¼], is characterised by mixed teams of staff who work on short-term projects such as bids for external funding and quality initiatives, as well as the longer-term projects” (Whitchurch 2008b, p. 386) “moving laterally across functional and organisational boundaries to create new professional spaces, knowledges and relationships” (Whitchurch 2008b, p. 379). The conceptualisation of HEPROs and third space professionals by Whitchurch can be described as a rather similar understanding of the professionalisation of personnel in universities (Whitchurch 2010a; Whitchurch and Gordon 2010). Whitchurch created the four types of “bounded professionals”, “cross-boundary professionals”, “unbounded professionals”, and “blended professionals” (Whitchurch 2008a, b, 2009):

Individuals who located themselves within the boundaries of a function or organisational location that they had either constructed for themselves, or which had been imposed upon them. These people were characterised by their concern for continuity and the maintenance of processes and standards, and by the performance of roles that were relatively prescribed. They were categorised as bounded professionals.

Individuals who recognised, and actively used boundaries to build strategic advantage and institutional capacity, capitalising on their knowledge of territories on either side of the boundaries that they encountered. They were likely to display negotiating and political skills, and also likely to interact with the external environment. These were categorised as cross-boundary professionals and, as in the case of bounded professionals, boundaries were a defining mechanism for them.

Individuals who displayed a disregard for boundaries, focusing on broadly-based projects across the university such as widening participation and student transitions, and on the development of their institutions for the future. These people undertook work that might be described as institutional research and development, drawing on external experience and contacts, and were as likely to see their futures outside higher education as within the sector. They were categorised as unbounded professionals. (Whitchurch 2008b, pp. 382–383)

In a comparative study on Australia, Great Britain and the United States Whitchurch’s (2009) fourth type of “blended professionals” got further shape:

They [blended professionals, note CS] managed areas of work variously described as learning or business partnership, student life, diversity, outreach, institutional research, programme management and community development. They were likely to have been appointed on the basis of external experience obtained in contiguous sectors such as adult or further education, regional development, or the charitable sector, and offered academic credentials in the form of master’s degrees and doctorates, although they were not employed on academic terms and conditions. (Whitchurch 2009, p. 408)

The latter two—unbounded and blended professionals—are prime examples of specialists working in the “third space” (Whitchurch 2008b, 2010a ) described above. The concept of third space professionals creates an independent sphere for an emerging group of personnel in universities. As an oversimplification it can be claimed that, according to their identity, these professionals are neither academic nor administrative personnel.

3.4 Institutional Research and Higher Education Professionals

Finally, institutional research —a traditional function and task of HEPROs—has for some time been in the focus of researchers (Fincher 1978a, b, 1981, 1982, 2000 ; Dressel 1981; Rogers and Gentemann 1989; McKinney and Hindera 1992; Terenzini 1993; Delaney 1997 ; Volkwein 1999 ; Hossler et al. 2001a, b; Teichler 1996; Neave 2005; Auferkorte-Michaelis 2008). Institutional research, although existing for decades and being well researched, got little to no attention by many authors discussed above. This is rather unfortunate as a rich body of literature provides insight into the working situation and role of institutional researchers , and their contribution to the university. For Fincher (1978a) institutional research is “organizational intelligence ”, which—based on higher education research—is supposed to guide campus-based planning (Dressel 1981; Farrell 1984 ; Fincher 1987, 1996) and interventions to enhance institutional development and effectiveness (Rogers and Gentemann 1989; Knight et al. 1997 ; Hossler et al. 2001a, b). Terenzini (1993) understands the metaphor of organisational intelligence more broadly, not only referring to data gathering about an institution. Institutional intelligence encompasses also analysis and transformation of data into information and reports, and provides insight and informed sense of the organisation. He identifies three kinds of equally important and interdependent organisational intelligence: technical/analytical intelligence (substantive expert knowledge and methodological competences), issues intelligence (understanding of the substantive problems and procedures; Whitchurch 2008b, p. 4), and contextual intelligence (understanding of the culture and customs of higher education, the particular institution and academics; Whitchurch 2008b, p. 5; also Montgomery 1984; Ehrenberg 2005 ).

Terenzini’s insight in the cognitive basis and functions is complemented by a theoretical examination of the role of institutional research . According to Volkwein (1999 ), institutional researchers have a formative/constitutive internal and a summative external role. They have to satisfy the needs of internal administration and management as well as the requirements of accountability and external stakeholders. A second duality, institutional researchers have to cope with, are the academic and administrative cultures. These cultures are strongly related to the primary functions of research and teaching on the one side and to bureaucracy on the other side. Institutional research operates “in both of these contrasting cultures” and “may be thought of as a halfway house” (Volkwein 1999, p. 10). The third duality derives from the tension between the institutional role of teaching and the professional role of scholarship academics have to deal with. Academics are in charge of teaching, but they are trained and rewarded for their research and scholarship. Volkwein generates a typology of roles for institutional researchers how to deal with these tensions of the three dualities in a productive way. The first role is one of institutional research as information authority, which describes the institution’s shape and size, its students and staff, and its activities. The second role is one of institutional research as policy analysis with internal and professional purpose studying and analysing the institution and its policies; both are categorised as internal roles. The third type is institutional research in a spin doctor role, assembling descriptive statistics that “reflect favourably upon the institution” (Volkwein 1999, p. 18), e.g. a role for professionally oriented scholars and researchers, who produce analytical evidence of institutional effectiveness, legal compliance, and goal attainment (Volkwein 1999; see also McKinney and Hindera 1992; Chan 1993). The latter two are externally oriented roles satisfying the need of accountability .

Teodorescu (2006, p. 75) adds the “knowledge brokerage ” function of institutional research and refers to institutional researchers as “knowledge managers ”. He stresses that an institutional research professional “should strive to become a creator and manager of knowledge rather than a provider of data or information” (Teodorescu 2006, p. 78). Teodorescu sees strong parallels to the academic profession: institutional research professionals similar to academics want to have a reputation as knowledgeable persons with valuable expertise who are serving an altruistic cause (Teodorescu 2006, p. 81).

Discussing institutional research and Whitchurchs third space professionals draws the discussion away from administration towards the heartlands of HEPROs. It has become evident, that HEPROs are not administrative personnel in the traditional sense. Also, their functions, tasks and roles are not primarily routine administration. However, the discussion presented above does not seem to produce an easy answer to the question of definition. These difficulties of positioning correspond to the results of the on-going HEPRO survey which found more than 500 different names and functions of units HEPROs are assigned to (Kehm et al. 2010, pp. 31–32 ). Also taking up, at least partially, new functions and tasks seem to be part of the job description of HEPROs.

4 Academic Personnel

The external influences fostering organisational change have been sketched in Sect. 3.1 . However, the evolution of administration, HEPROs, and university as an organisation needs to take into account the steady development of the academic profession as a profession (Parsons and Platt 1968, 1973; Barnett and Middlehurst 1993; Stichweh 1994; El-Khawas 1996; Middlehurst 2000; Oevermann 2005; Schimank 2005 ; Macfarlane 2010, 2011a ). Contrary to the attempt of establishing an identity for third space professionals, the established academic identity and culture is the point of reference for all changes of the academic profession. When studying the literature on the three groups of university staff it seems that it is easiest to agree on terminology and activities of academic staff performing their core functions. Among others (e.g. Clark 1987 ; Boyer et al. 1994 ; Altbach 1996; Geurts and Maassen 1996; Enders and Teichler 1997 ; Welch 1997a, b ; Henkel 2002, 2005, 2007; Welch 1997a, b; Rhoades 1998, 2007; Brennan et al. 2007 ; Kogan and Teichler 2007a ; Locke and Teichler 2007 ; Vabø 2007), Kogan and Teichler (2007b) consider the professoriate as the major point of orientation of academic personnel consisting of external and internal roles in a different mix. “Professors figure in the invisible colleges which are largely informal arrangements through which academic norm-setting is maintained and assessments are made for senior academic posts, fellowships of academies and research grants” (Kogan and Teichler 2007b, p. 12). Quality assurance in teaching and research is maintained by trans-institutional systems. The norms of the invisible colleges “are transmuted into allocative decisions by the management systems” (Kogan and Teichler 2007b). Professors are, in their external roles, supposed to be “acknowledged leaders in their subject field” and “are expected to set the norms for teaching and research in their subject area” (Kogan and Teichler 2007b). In most national systems, professors bear a key role in setting themes and standards for research and scholarship or in curriculum development. Also, the education and mentoring of students and junior academics is part of the job description of professors. On these grounds of expertise and reputation professors take a role in institutional government and academic autonomy, e.g. participate in decisions on promotions, resource allocations, or review the institutional profile. “The operation of the professoriate or, more widely, the academics makes them part of a system” (Kogan and Teichler 2007b). The power of decisions on curriculum or the rules of assessment, examination or evaluation are obvious competences of the professoriate. For the implementation of these formal legislative actions a bureaucracy is required. Another link of professors with the managerial system of the university are functions such as research and teaching and positions such as head of department (Kogan and Teichler 2007b, p. 12).

4.1 Shifts in the Academic Job Descriptions, Para-Academics and Higher Education Professionals

In a nutshell, the basic academic functions comprise of research, teaching and related valorisation activities summarised as the third mission (e.g. Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 1998, 2000; Etzkowitz et al. 2000 ; Krücken 2003; Laredo 2007; Musselin 2007 ; Mora et al. 2010; Schneijderberg and Teichler 2010), with institutional government/management being a focal task. Musselin (2007) has spelled out the three missions as three must dos of today’s academics: research (mission one), teaching (mission two) and valorisation (mission three). The three missions not only characterise academic activities, they also represent an explicit augmentation of tasks of academics. The writing of proposals for research grants, negotiation of contracts, or being engaged in knowledge and technology transfers is stipulated and recognised as important aspect of academic work . The diversification of tasks applies to teaching, as well. Teaching activities represent a larger scope of tasks of academic staff. Teaching students and supervising doctoral students are complemented by teaching specialised courses, design of e-learning courses, or finding internships for students (Musselin 2007, p. 177). “As part of the third mission academics work together with regional, national or international bodies and decision makers. Academic staff is supposed to engage with the public at large, e.g. involvement in public debates, public expertise, and offer support to public policy ” (Musselin 2007, p. 178). When analysing the functions and tasks of academic staff the distribution of the workload provides further information on the development of the working activities. In a recent study, Tight (2010) found increasing academic workloads and related role overload of professors. Also, shifts within the workload have become evident within the past two decades: less time was spent on teaching, more time on research, and even more time on scientific services/third mission activities (Boyer et al. 1994 ; Altbach 1996; Enders and Teichler 1995a, b, 1997 ; Jakob and Teichler 2009, 2011). However, there are variations: In Germany, the teaching load has been passed on from professors to the middle ranks, especially to newly introduced staff positions with an extra-high teaching load (Jakob and Teichler 2009, 2011, pp. 22–33). Knight et al. (2007 ) found an increase of part-time teachers in universities in Great Britain. Also, more and more academics work on the basis of non-standard contracts in universities in Great Britain (Brown and Gold 2007). Musselin found that in French universities professors “are less and less in contact with concrete scientific work as they raise funds, develop contacts, write project proposals” (Musselin 2007, p. 178 ). McInnis (2010, p. 158) claims that a systematic preparation of early-career academic staff has become a norm at the national and institutional level in Australia, Great Britain and the United States.

Macfarlane argues that the academic all-rounder is disappearing: “Academic functions are being subcontracted to a growing army of para-academics: individuals who specialise in one element of academic life” (Macfarlane 2011a, p. 60 ). Consequently, the divergence of functions into either research or teaching or service results in a differentiation of academic identity into different roles either as researcher, or as teacher, or as manager (Macfarlane 2011a, pp. 61–62, 68). Macfarlane situates the development of “para-academics roles” (Coaldrake 2000, p. 21) in the rising numbers and up-skilling of administrative and professional support staff and the parallel process of de-skilling of all-round academics (Macfarlane 2011a, pp. 62–63). Macfarlane is concerned with the process of “hollowing out” (Massy et al. 1994) of academic life and the hollowing out of what it means to be an academic. He does not doubt the professional expertise and efficiency gains due to para-academic services (Macfarlane 2011a, p. 69). However, as “managerial processes have largely supplanted the direct influence of academics with respect to university decision making, even though academics continue to hold positions that formally confer the vestiges of power” (Macfarlane 2011a), pressures on academic personnel are increasing. Already in the last century McInnis noted that “once administrative staffs were considered powerless functionaries” (McInnis 1998, p. 170), but when taking over “high-profile technical and specialist roles that impinge directly on academic autonomy and control over the core activities of teaching and research” they turned into “professional managers ” who “often have extensive budgetary control and responsibility for accountability mechanisms” (McInnis 1998). This has led to a decline of self-regulation and work satisfaction among academic staff (McInnis 2010, pp. 154–156) and led to considering professors as being “managed professionals” (Rhoades 1998). The accountability mechanisms establish performance appraisal for research and teaching (Barnett and Middlehurst 1993, pp. 120–121 ) and have severe impact on academic career paths (Macfarlane 2011a, p. 68 )—although, at least for Great Britain, promotion schemes remain stable (Cashmore and Ramsden 2009, pp. 50–53). Also, special reward schemes for teaching have been established in many countries (Macfarlane 2011b; Wilkesmann and Schmid 2011). Musselin interprets the process to single out functions as a process of rising control exercised over academics (Musselin 2007, p. 179 ). Using a term introduced by Moodie this process can be interpreted as a decline of the “academic rule” (Moodie 1996, p. 131).

The process of differentiation of academic activities analysed by Musselin is being described as a blurring of boundaries as well (e.g. Gornitzka et al. 1998; Gornitzka and Larsen 2004; Leslie and Rhoades 1995; Rhoades 1998). Gornitzka et al. found that there is “no clear boundary between performing primary work, such as teaching and research, and administering it” (Gornitzka et al. 1998, p. 24). Internal university administration comprises “time spent on evaluating applications for positions inside your own university, evaluating students for administration, replying to minor inquiries, etc.” (Gornitzka et al. 1998, pp. 24–25). These are tasks of academic personnel , which are “neither teaching nor research but which nevertheless cannot be delegated to administrators. A certain administrative load belongs to academic positions at universities” (Gornitzka et al. 1998, p. 25). For example, curriculum planning and research projects both contain elements of administration and academic activities of research and teaching. Nevertheless, the entanglement of administrative and academic tasks described by Gornitzka et al. is being disentangled. Academic staff shares responsibilities with HEPROs but also lose control over certain academic domains, e.g. curriculum (Barnett and Middlehurst 1993 , p. 116; Coaldrake 2000, p. 16). HEPROs are in charge of student counselling, evaluation of applications, curriculum design, teaching schedules, evaluation of teaching, etc. Also, in doing so, HEPROs “are reshaping academic work by virtue of their increasingly pivotal roles in such areas as course management and delivery” (McInnis 1998, p. 168).

As already-indicated examples for a differentiation of research activities and the overlap of academic roles and HEPROs are more difficult to find. Formulating it in a provocative way it seems that academic staff does not let go of the research function as easily as it does with the teaching function. The example of transfer officers as a group of HEPROs shows very well how the extension of tasks and activities open up the research function. These still relatively new positions appear to require a mix of competences and original profiles of academic staff. Often, persons in these positions are university graduates and hold a Ph.D. “but also have management skills” (Musselin 2007, p. 179 ). To fulfil their tasks, they have to “possess a solid scientific background with strong skills in project management” (Musselin 2007). Musselin concludes that these “new functions at the frontier between academic and management activities are thus created and participate in establishing a new division of academics tasks based on increased specialisation” (Musselin 2007; see also Leslie and Rhoades 1995, pp. 193, 199, 205; Rhoades 2006, pp. 386–388; Krücken 2003; Krücken et al. 2007; Adamczak et al. 2007; Sebalj and Holbrook 2009; Kehm et al. 2010 ; Kloke and Krücken 2010; Shelley 2010 ). More examples of relations to the community and business partnerships where HEPROs are involved are: student’s employability and employer contacts, research spin-offs, business incubation, enterprise, university-industry relations (Whitchurch 2010b, p. 628).

It has become evident that the working reality of academic staff is becoming more challenging, “as boundaries have become more permeable and transgressive, academics must operate within more open and contested arenas” (Henkel 2005, p. 170). The differentiation of the academic all-rounder into distinctive academic roles can be further analysed when discussing the “academic-turned-manager” (Deem 2006 ). It is most interesting to see that the academic identity and culture remains important for academic managers. However, it is most interesting to observe the growing demand for professional academic managers, as well.

4.2 The “Academic-Turned-Manager” or the Changing Roles of Academic Managers

Administrative managers find themselves not only acting as independent arbiters, giving impartial advice on the basis of professional expertise, but also becoming involved in political judgements about institutional futures. They increasingly undertake an interpretive function between the various communities of the university and its external partners. As the boundaries of the university have become more permeable administrative and academic management have inter-digitated, and hybrid roles have developed. (Whitchurch 2004, p. 280 )

The partly parallel and partly interwoven development of administrative and academic management created “inter-digitated, and hybrid roles”; and it leads to a process of professionalisation as academic managers are claimed to be an “emerging profession” (DeBoer et al. 2010, p. 231). This fits the bigger concern of how to manage “modern universities” (Shattock 2000). In a comparative literature review on academic middle managers in Australia and the Netherlands, Meek et al. (2010b) express the need for “professionalisation of university administration and administrators” as an “important aspect of the new managerialism” (Meek et al. 2010b, p. 41 ). Nevertheless, they emphasise that the blurring between academic roles and roles of HEPROs did not result in a complete fusion (Meek et al. 2010b). According to authors such as Middlehurst and Elton (1992), this separation can be explained with the academic function providing educational, academic and administrative leadership. Leadership at the institutional level is defined “in terms of institutional strategy, direction and development; the articulation and representation of institutional goals and values; the generation of institutional commitment, confidence and cohesion” (Meek et al. 2010b, p. 258). Management was defined “in terms of policy execution; resource deployment and optimisation; procedural frameworks; and planning, co-ordination and control systems” (Meek et al. 2010b). The two functions can be associated with particular roles, for example, leadership with the role of a rector or president or vice-chancellor and management with roles of HEPROs or senior administrators. Great challenges arise from the call for strong leadership in professional organisations (Middlehurst and Kennie 1995).

A minimalistic definition of the role of managers “is to ensure that the organisation serves its basic purpose” (Lorsch et al. 1978, p. 219 cited by Clegg and McAuley 2005, pp. 20–21). A manager is supposed to “design and maintain the stability of his organisation’s operations” and a manager should, “through the process of strategy formulation, ensure that his organisation adapts in a controlled way to its changing environment.” A last issue is of importance when analysing the management of a university: A manager should “ensure that the organisation serves those people who control it” (Clegg and McAuley 2005, pp. 20–21). The necessity. The necessity to react to governmental demands provoked changes in internal management (e.g. Gornitzka 1999; Kogan 2007). Kogan (2007 ) singled out four basic developments:

  1. 1.

    The growth of managerial and administrative work at both institutional and intra-institutional level.

  2. 2.

    The “changes in the tasks and relative power of academics and administrators within universities” (Kogan 2007, p. 162).

  3. 3.

    The increasing range of tasks for non-academic administrators plus the increase in their numbers.

  4. 4.

    The development of academic administration which Kogan labels “the bureaucratisation of the collegium” (Kogan 2007).

Similar to administering academic activities, the requirements to manage a university as an organisation creates new challenges for professors as temporary or permanent, full-time or part-time manager or “academic-turned-manager” (Deem 2006, p. 208 ) in the function of a rector or president or vice-chancellor, vice-rector or vice-president or deputy vice-chancellor, dean, deputy dean, etc. (e.g. Dearlove 1998; Amaral et al. 2002, 2003; Reed 2002; Middlehurst 2004, p. 272; Kogan and Teichler 2007b; Ferlie et al. 2008 ): “The managerial system is headed by a rector, president or vice-chancellor but is serviced by administrators who may be professional managers , or may be recruited from academics” (Ferlie et al. 2008., p. 12). Dill (1982, 1996, 1999 ) insists, that managing a university requires special skills rooted in the academic culture , which is distinctly different from the culture in other types of organisations:

To understand the relevance of these skills we must [¼] explore three interrelated phenomena: first, the part culture plays in models of management; second, the traits which distinguish universities from other organizations and make the management of culture of particular importance; third, the reasons for the decline of the existing academic culture. (Dill 1982, p. 304)

The two phenomena of the culture of management and the culture of a university as a special organisation open the realm for the discussion of the management-interface of academic personnel and HEPROs. Referring to Clark, Dill names the challenges of managing complex academic organisations with managing “ideologies, or systems of belief,” which “permeate academic institutions at least at three different levels: the culture of the enterprise, the culture of the academic profession at large, and the culture of academic discipline” (Dill 1982, p. 309 ; see also Campbell 2003). Academically educated HEPROs have a notion of this complex difference of cultural work. Therefore, the most challenging enterprise results in finding management pathways (Deem 2006, p. 221 ) among the multiple levels of cultural logics.Footnote 13

Despite different management paradigms (Clarke and Clegg 2000), the way of managing a university is not yet found. Trow (2010 [1993]) classified the conflicting pressures and hybridisation of managerial processes in universities by the distinction between hard and soft management. He defines “soft managerialism” (Trow 2010 [1993], pp. 272–273) as acceptance of a certain extent of inefficiency and ineffectiveness, and changes of any kind as based on an agreement and consent of all those involved. At the other end of the spectrum, “hard managerialism” (Trow 2010 [1993]) is based on management techniques known from hierarchical organisations, e.g. business. It is based on control and not on trust as it involves discourses and techniques of reward and punishment for employees who are considered to be fundamentally untrustworthy and thus incapable of self-reform or change. Examples are the assessment of research (Trow 2010 [1993], pp. 279–281) and teaching (Trow 2010 [1993], pp. 281–287). Trowler criticises the hard managerialism reforms in Great Britain as having “an atomistic and mechanistic understanding of knowledge and learning” (Trowler 1998, pp. 93–94 ).

The issue of power shifts due to the expansion in status and power of HEPROs has been discussed already in Sect. 3.3. El-Khawas (1995) observed that in universities in the United States, institution-wide committees such as the senate, which are traditionally dominated by academic personnel , have to share the factual decision-making process with administrators/HEPROs. This observation applies to many other countries, as well (cf. Dunn 2003 ).

Kogan points out that the prime roles of HEPROs are managerial support and service provision: “Academics have to adapt to communication with these professionals who are amateurs in academic matters but professionals in shaping the university, and in aspects of institutional management not normally grasped by academics” (Kogan 2007, pp. 163–164 ). However, “the cult of the amateur manager-academic” (Deem 2006, p. 222 ) stays alive, as rectors, vice-chancellors or heads of departments are mainly recruited from the ranks of academics. However, the cult is crumbling: The changing role of academic middle management in many universities across the globe becomes evident with deanship and directorship having “changed from short-term elected positions to appointed positions with clear job specifications to provide strong academic and administrative leadership” (Meek et al. 2010a, p. 2 ). Academic middle management is differentiated from managers on the top of the organisation on the one hand and from managers at the bottom level, e.g. course coordination, on the other hand. In most national cases, the term refers to “deans of faculty, heads of departments/schools and research directors”(Meek et al. 2010a, p. 3) who are “best placed for implementing institutional policies and strategies” (Meek et al. 2010a, p. 3; also da Motta and Bolan 2008). Management skills are not only required at the top of the universities, but also in middle management positions, which gain increasing responsibilities to “actually manage their faculties” (DeBoer et al. 2010, p. 229). They are expected to combine academic expertise with managerial competence containing explicit responsibility, e.g. contracts and accountability (DeBoer et al. 2010, pp. 229–230; also Clegg and McAuley 2005, p. 21).

It is clear that academic staff and especially professors have a designated role in management as part of the internal government (cf. Kogan and Teichler 2007b). However, some universities in Germany, Great Britain and the United States are already headed by manager type presidents with a short or no academic record. In Australian universities, the career tracks are set for a management career of academic personnel (Macfarlane 2011a, p. 68 ). There are strong indications, that the professional role of academic-turned-managers will only keep its academic character when the roots and logic remains in the academic culture , being strongly supported by HEPROs.

5 The Overlap Model

The question of who HEPROs are and what they do touches, as was shown above, a broad range of issues in higher education research, professionalisation and organisational research, management theories as well as reports and analyses from the practice. Other areas of research could have been considered as well, such as legal aspects or working conditions. Nevertheless, the picture of HEPROs remains blurred. Drawing on the literature referred to above they may be described best by looking at their roles and functions. An obvious characteristic is the overlap with traditional administrative and academic roles, functions and tasks.

Although a complete picture of the characteristics of HEPROs and of their tasks does not yet exist, we will introduce in the following a bi-polar model, which allows to situate the functions and tasks of HEPROs between the two poles. This model will be completed by an analysis of the differentiation of academic activities—indicated by the Academic Overlap—and the differentiation of administrative activities—indicated by the Administrative Overlap. The overlap model provides a simple clear-cut picture of the three spheres and the overlaps of functions and tasks of academic and administrative personnel and HEPROs; it makes the evolution of categories of university personnel explicit and aligns the elements, functions and roles of administration, management, research and teaching for further research. This could amalgamate into what Middlehurst referred to as the HEPROs of the twenty-first century (Middlehurst 2000, see also 2010).

The following analysis has two starting points: first, the differentiation and emergence of new positions, functions and roles in university administration ; second, the “unbundling” (Kinser 2002, p. 13) of the academic all-rounder and the resulting differentiation of research, teaching and university management (Parsons 1968; Parsons and Platt 1968, 1970, 1973; Barnett and Middlehurst 1993 ; Stichweh 1994; El-Khawas 1996; Oevermann 2005; Schimank 2005 ; Macfarlane 2011a ). The analysis suggests an overlap model based on a bi-polar scheme with administrative personnel at the one end and academic personnel at the other; HEPROs are placed in between. Considering a certain static moment in the model each of the three spheres has a realm of its own. All three personnel spheres interact. Interaction takes place in a bi-lateral as well as multi-lateral way and is never one-directional. At the fringes of the two poles, the overlaps replace the interfaces (see Fig. 5.1).

Fig. 5.1
figure 1

The overlap model

Full size image

Examples of staff located at the Administrative Overlap are equal opportunities officers, ombudspersons for students with special needs, persons in charge of knowledge transfer, for research support on a general level, and for institutional research (see Fincher 1978a, b , Terenzini 1993, Volkwein 1999 ). In more general terms, the core activities of HEPROs are information gathering, processing, and distribution; support, service, and management which are classified primarily as neither strictly academic nor strictly administrative work. These activities require academic training, knowledge and skills. Positions are heads of units in central administration, coordinators at department level, assistants to the Rector/President or Dean, quality assurance officers, etc.

The Academic Overlap is constituted by a differentiation of activities which used to be and are in the job description of academic staff. They are characterised by a close relation to the primary academic functions of research and teaching. The approach chosen for analysis is similar to Macfarlane’s (2011a ) differentiation of academic identities into roles. Understood as a process of differentiation of academic functions and tasks these are not performed solely by academic staff anymore due to various reasons, e.g. big numbers of students, new approaches to teaching and learning, expansion of valorisation activities of universities. Thinking of functions, tasks and positions of HEPROs in the academic overlap teaching seems to be more prominent than research. In German universities at least, HEPROs teach classes for general skills to enhance the employability of graduates; early career academics and professors are supposed to attend didactics training to improve their teaching skills and foster student learning; HEPROs are in charge of curriculum design or the coordination of study programmes; and student counselling, also discipline and subject related, is offered more and more by HEPROs and less and less by academics.

6 Conclusions

The discussion of the evolution of functions in research, teaching and management reveals several shifts of tasks and roles. Indications are strong that new hubs arise in a “shifting arena” (Shelley 2010, p. 439 ). Also, the academic culture and role of academics can be considered as the point of reference for HEPROs. Dobson and Conway (2003, p. 127) in analysing older publications by Sloper (1975), Plowman (1977), Bacchetti (1978), Silver (1983), and Topley (1990) conclude that HEPROs are requested to base their work on academic values rather than operating in a bureaucratic way. Nevertheless, the relationship of academic personnel and HEPROs seems to be a fundamental question already for some time: “The growing power of non-academic administrators raises the question whether they develop functions and values which are separable from those of the heads of institutions and other academic decision-makers whose work they service” (Becher and Kogan 1992, p. 179 ). This opens up the field for research on identity and its link to the changing functions and roles of academic staff and HEPROs. Further research could scrutinise the Academic Overlap and Administrative Overlap and the (possibly) interdependent appearance of HEPROs and para-academics: HEPROs and para-academics could be considered being two of a kind, quasi being binovular twins resulting from the evolution of academic and administrative functions. Also, the question could be researched whether HEPROs and para-academic roles merge—fully institutionalising hybrid professional roles in higher education—or whether the line between academic and administrative spheres will be drawn in between them.

Research on functions, tasks and roles of HEPROs and para-academics has just begun. The overlap model could facilitate the analysis. It became clear that today’s discussion of HEPROs, their roles, functions and tasks has two channels: one coming from the administrative sphere and the other coming from the academic sphere. The administrative activities of HEPROs are characterised in many cases as augmenting bureaucratisation; and their expansion into the academic sphere as a threat to the academic profession. Dobson and Conway (2003, p. 129) suggest that the development of the area of work of HEPROs is a disturbance to the academic work jurisdiction (Abbot 1988). Shelley (2010 ) uncovered the “shifting arena” of research managers in universities and the problem of shifting academic and management/administration territories. Macfarlane extends the picture to the academic sphere with introducing para-academic roles. This results from an unbundling of academic functions, continuing specialisation and a change of academic identity (Macfarlane 2011a, pp. 61–62). This development is complemented by the emerging group of HEPROs. In hybrid roles and environments, HEPROs fill in functions and take over tasks that contribute to the work and success of universities.

Understood as an evolution resulting from a stable and ordinary response to environmental change the roles are based on functions and tasks. Borrowing from Harloe and Perry (2005) this manifests as a functional rethinking of professional positions in universities instead of a hollowing out of the (traditional) academic culture of the university. According to Noordegraf (2007), a shift from pure to hybrid forms of professionalism and mixed control become prevalent. The university as an arena can be well grasped with the overlap model. From discussing the Academic Overlap and the Administrative Overlap it became evident that the bi-polar analysis has to be extended by adding a third dimension. This third dimension unlocks the static positions of academic and administrative personnel. Accordingly, HEPROs are not considered on an in-between position. In the shifting arenas of work, the three groups of academic and administrative personnel and HEPROs do meet. Looked at from above a model consisting of overlapping circles, creating direct overlaps among academic and administrative personnel and HEPROs seems to fit better. Consequently, the overlap would be inhibited according to functions and tasks, no matter whether old or new. Research, teaching and third mission activities are functions and tasks at the Academic Overlap. Management and non-routine administration are functions and tasks at the Administrative Overlap. This might bridge the gap between the academic profession and HEPROs. Middlehurst (2010) has already challenged the notion of the identity of academic personnel and HEPROs as two worlds apart in an explorative essay introducing the universal higher education professional.