The original duality between academics and administrators has changed as a result of changes in the higher education field. Between academics and non-academics, a third space professionals has developed itself into an influential group. This group may be the connecting link between the two domains. This paper describes research on the extent to which this group of the so called third space professionals is (or want to) experiencing influence on the different processes from the domains. The results show the consistence of the interacting spheres between academics and administrators and the emergence of the new third space professionals forming a new specialized buffer zone between academics and administrators. Moreover they show the archipelago that the different departments within the administrators (non-academic staff) appear to be.

1. !
Interacting Spheres Revisited.
Academics and Administrators between Dualism and Cooperation
Paper Presentation EAIR 2015
From here to there: Positioning Higher Education Institutions
37th EAIR forum, Danube University, Krems, Austria, Aug. 30 - Sept. 2, 2015.
Ton Kallenberg
!

2. My questions
I was interested into two questions:
• how do academics and administrators currently relate to each
other? (is there still talk of the existence of the interacting spheres)
• are the “new professionals” really a new distinctive group of
officials?
introduction
The Interacting
Spheres model
New
Professionals
Research Results
Discussion and
conclusions

3. The past
(During the 70s - 80s) Universities were seen as:
• loosely coupled systems (Weick, 1976)
• decision-making processes: garbage can model (Cohen, March & Olsen,
1972)
• a structure of chaos: organized anarchy as a respons to ambiguity (Moch &
Pondy, 1977)
• hybrid organizations: various subsystems operate independently to each
other (In ’t Veld, 1984)
• interacting spheres between academics and administrators (Hanson, 1979)
introduction
The Interacting
Spheres model
New
Professionals
Research Results
Discussion and
conclusions

4. focus on innovations
mid 80’s quality assurance start of external accreditation processes
90’s learnability study methods & guidance / learning styles
00’s internationalization
teachers quality
study progress
curriculumstructure
emerge of attention for diversity / multicultural
start international programs (f.i. IBA)
teacher training programs (basis qualification)
40 ects after 1 year of study
learning lines, elective, educational concepts (PBL)
10’s output efficiency “Nominal = Normal” (60 ects after 1 year)
(Some) trends in policy - attention
introduction
The Interacting
Spheres model
New
Professionals
Research Results
Discussion and
conclusions

5. The present
As a results of these developments:
• trend towards managerialism (Smeenk et al, 2009)
• substantial drive towards greater accountability, performance, quality
inspection, target setting (and so on) (Deem & Brehony, 2005; Anderson, 2008;
Kolsaker, 2008; Meek et al, 2010, Hyde et al, 2013)
• formation of third space professionals / new professionals / blended
professionals (Whitchurch, 2006; Klumpp & Teichler, 2008)
• universities have become more bureaucratic organizations (“There is an
irresistible rise of academic bureaucracy, and where does it stops?”)
introduction
The Interacting
Spheres model
New
Professionals
Research Results
Discussion and
conclusions

6. My questions
I was interested into two questions:
• how do academics and administrators currently relate to each
other? (is there still talk of the existence of the interacting
spheres)
• are the “new professionals” really a new distinctive group of
officials?
introduction
The Interacting
Spheres model
New
Professionals
Research Results
Discussion and
conclusions

7. The interacting spheres model
Two groups of officials:
• academics engaged with primary tasks, namely education and
research
• administrators (overhead) - management and support of the primary
tasks
• pure overhead: human resources, finance control, facility
management etc.
• specific educational and research support
introduction
The Interacting
Spheres model
New
Professionals
Research Results
Discussion and
conclusions

8. Academics
Administrators
The Interacting Spheres Model
(origin: Hanson, 1979)
introduction
The Interacting
Spheres model
New
Professionals
Research Results
Discussion and
conclusions
flexible environment
classroom decisions
autonomy
quasi rational environment
school wide decisions
autority
contested zone
negotiated order
conflict resolution

9. New professionals
as a result of the scale-up and political-administrative changes:
1. shift of decentralization and greater autonomy towards organizations
• emerge of more differentiated sections, departments and services
2. emerge of more specialized tasks and functions with ‘power’
• shift from primary to secondary processes
• shift in the balance between the two domains (academics and
administrators)
introduction
The Interacting
Spheres model
New
Professionals
Research Results
Discussion and
conclusions

10. New professionals
they:
• work at the interface between administration, academics and university
leadership (Whitchurch, 2006, 2008, 2013; Mcfarlane, 2011)
• have essential sector-specific expertise (Klücken et al, 2013)
• monitor, regulate and manage the educational processes (Deem & Brehony,
2005)
• can neither been seen as part of the administrators nor do they belong to the
academic staff (Klumpp & Teichler, 2008; Schneijderberg & Merkator, 2012)
introduction
The Interacting
Spheres model
New
Professionals
Research Results
Discussion and
conclusions

11. Academics
Administrators
New Professionals
introduction
The Interacting
Spheres model
New
Professionals
Research Results
Discussion and
conclusions
New professionals

12. Academic middle manager
(Hellawell & Hancock, 2001; Kallenberg, 2005;
2013)
umbrella term for the middle manager from the
academic staff who:
...is integrally responsible for program curricula,
from strategy through to educational management
academic manager (Mercer, 2009)
mid-level academic manager (Inman, 2007;
Whitchurch, 2008; Larsen et al, 2009)
manager academics (Deem & Brehony, 2005)
Educational Administrator
(Kallenberg, 2015)
umbrella term for the middle manager from the
administrative staff who:
…play their role in developing, supporting, and
advising on educational activities.
… show scientific aspirations
director educational affairs
head quality control
educational advisor
program coordinator
introduction
The Interacting
Spheres model
New
Professionals
Research Results
Discussion and
conclusions

13. These new professionals:
• work between the organizational structure of checks and
balances
• they work “under the radar”
• they are the lubricant between the domains
• they work with both the academic and administrative rhythms,
timescales and staff
• they work with the different perceptions of power between
academic and administrative staff.
• By being aware of their binding function, they can use their
(tacit) knowledge to interpret and synthesize this knowledge
within the organization (prism-effect)
introduction
The Interacting
Spheres model
New
Professionals
Research Results
Discussion and
conclusions

14. The research
• online survey (SurveyMonkey)
• may - june 2015
• 6 Dutch universities (out of 13) -
• 1.632 addresses (from websites) of employees of faculties.
• 548 respondents (31,6%) - 487 in dataset.
• in questionnaire - three levels: (1) curriculum processes, (2)
education support processes, (3) education conditional processes
introduction
The Interacting
Spheres model
New
Professionals
Research Results
Discussion and
conclusions

15. Academics
!
introduction
The Interacting
Spheres model
New
Professionals
Research Results
Discussion and
conclusions

16. Academics
introduction
The Interacting
Spheres model
New
Professionals
Research Results
Discussion and
conclusions
academics (current) (N=222) third space professionals (N=104) administrators (current) (N=147)

17. Academics
introduction
The Interacting
Spheres model
New
Professionals
Research Results
Discussion and
conclusions
academics
(N = 222)
administrators
(N = 147)
third space
professionals
(N = 104)
academic middle
managers
(N = 72)
educational
administrators
(N = 32)
have want to
have
have want to
have
have want to
have
have want to have have want to
have
content of education 3,55 3,98 (,43) 1,29 1,58 (,29) 3,50 3,66 (,16) 4,26 4,24 (- ,02) 1,78 2,38 (,60)
development of education 3,26 3,67 (,41) 1,39 1,63 (,24) 3,55 3,71 (,16) 4,11 4,13 (,02) 2,28 2,78 (,50)
teaching education 3,69 4,00 (,31) 1,34 1,49 (,15) 3,52 3,63 (,11) 4,25 4,27 (,02) 1,84 2,16 (,32)
assessment 3,64 3,86 (,22) 1,34 1,41 (,07) 3,41 3,51 (,10) 4,08 4,08 (,00) 1,84 2,19 (,35)
education logistics & planning 2,01 2,94 (,93) 1,85 1,99 (,14) 2,44 3,11 (,67) 2,61 3,50 (,89) 2,06 2,22 (,16)
educational engineering &
infrastructure
1,50 2,35 (,85) 1,50 1,66 (,16) 1,88 2,75 (,87) 1,99 3,07 (1,08) 1,63 2,03 (,40)
students & exam
administration
1,54 2,01 (,47) 1,92 1,98 (,06) 2,10 2,57 (,47) 2,01 2,63 (,62) 2,30 2,43 (,13)
internal and external
communication
1,80 2,27 (,47) 2,13 2,28 (,15) 2,40 2,93 (,53) 2,49 3,08 (,59) 2,19 2,59 (,40)
study & student guidance 2,16 2,49 (,33) 1,85 2,01 (,16) 2,42 2,62 (,20) 2,38 2,55 (,17) 2,52 2,77 (,25)
financial affairs 1,54 2,27 (,73) 1,48 1,56 (,08) 2,23 2,88 (,65) 2,33 2,97 (,64) 2,00 2,69 (,69)
human resources 1,68 2,29 (,61) 1,57 1,79 (,22) 2,54 3,12 (,58) 2,82 3,38 (,56) 1,91 2,53 (,62)
quality assurance 2,09 2,54 (,45) 1,68 1,82 (,14) 3,29 3,43 (,14) 3,36 3,53 (,17) 3,13 3,19 (,06)
governance 2,08 2,63 (,55) 1,78 2,05 (,27) 3,14 3,37 (,23) 3,39 3,51 (,12) 2,55 3,06 (,51)
strategic issues 1,87 2,78 (,91) 1,65 2,05 (,40) 2,95 3,66 (,71) 2,94 3,64 (,70) 2,97 3,72 (,75)

18. Academics
introduction
The Interacting
Spheres model
New
Professionals
Research Results
Discussion and
conclusions
educational
logistics &
planning
(N=12)
educational
engineering &
infra-structure
(N=26)
students &
exam
administrati
on (N=36)
internal &
external
communicatin
g (N=26)
study &
student
guidance
(N=14)
financial
affairs
(N=6)
human
resource
(N=9)
governanc
e (N=34)
content of education 1,50 1,08 1,22 1,23 1,64 1,17 1,00 1,62
development of education 2,00 1,27 1,14 1,42 1,79 1,17 1,00 2,12
teaching education 1,33 1,12 1,47 1,19 1,36 1,17 1,00 1,67
assessment 2,17 1,23 1,28 1,08 1,36 1,17 1,00 1,76
education logistics & planning 3,00 1,31 1,97 1,23 3,71 1,50 1,00 1,91
educational engineering &
infrastructure
1,67 2,46 1,14 1,19 1,50 1,67 1,00 1,50
students & exam administration 3,08 1,42 2,54 1,15 2,79 1,20 1,00 2,13
internal and external communication 2,58 1,35 1,61 3,85 2,71 2,00 1,11 2,09
study & student guidance 2,42 1,19 1,61 1,31 4,71 1,17 1,00 2,30
financial affairs 1,67 1,35 1,42 1,50 1,07 4,17 1,00 1,88
human resources 1,42 1,46 1,44 1,38 1,00 2,50 3,33 1,82
quality assurance 2,27 1,52 1,42 1,46 2,36 1,83 1,00 3,12
governance 2,33 1,46 1,39 1,92 2,07 3,00 1,33 2,52
strategic issues 1,67 1,54 1,36 2,08 1,43 2,50 1,22 2,94

19. Academics
introduction
The Interacting
Spheres model
New
Professionals
Research Results
Discussion and
conclusions
professors (N=129) (head) teachers
(N=125)
PhD-students /
researchers
(N=37)
content of education 3,98 3,82 2,49
development of education 3,60 3,65 2,36
teaching education 3,99 3,95 2,92
assessment 3,87 3,98 2,54
education logistics & planning 2,29 2,31 1,46
educational engineering & infrastructure 1,72 1,68 1,27
students & exam administration 1,73 1,72 1,31
internal and external communication 2,24 1,89 1,30
study & student guidance 2,36 2,31 1,59
financial affairs 2,32 1,36 1,14
human resources 2,66 1,52 1,22
quality assurance 2,90 2,20 1,41
governance 3,11 1,99 1,28
strategic issues 2,89 1,67 1,14

20. Discussion & Conclusions
• The both questions can be answered affirmative
• The Interacting Spheres Model:
• academic middle managers want to have more influence on education
supportive processes (planning & logistics / engineering & infrastructure)
• educational administrators want to have more influence on curriculum
processes
• academics want to have more influence on conditional processes
(finance, strategy)
introduction
The Interacting
Spheres model
New
Professionals
Research Results
Discussion and
conclusions

21. Discussion & Conclusions
introduction
The Interacting
Spheres model
New
Professionals
Research Results
Discussion and
conclusions
• Loosely Coupled System is still there!
(esp. Administrators seems to be an archipelago or a Patchwork)
• New Professionals are a new specialized buffer zone between
academics and administrators
• Will there be a ‘fourth power’ (educational administrators)? (or: when
will there be a stop on the rise of the bureaucracy?)

22. Discussion & Conclusions
• Why a patchwork?
• there’s no communality
• no vision on the future
• conflicting interests
• totally different interests
• all kind of decisions are made in addition to and independently of each other
• The meaning of this for educational innovation? Questions!
• How to increase the succes rate of innovations? (Keep it small!)
• How to avoid stickiness in innovations after a change of focus of attention? (towards a
new hype) (incremental innovation!)
introduction
The Interacting
Spheres model
New
Professionals
Research Results
Discussion and
conclusions

23. Discussion & Conclusions
• Further research:
• increase the respondents to massive frequencies
• several European countries (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, UK,
etc.)
• use of Actor Network Theory for more significant understanding of
the connection between people (cultural anthropological
approach)
introduction
The Interacting
Spheres model
New
Professionals
Research Results
Discussion and
conclusions

24. You are invited to download the presentation on:
www.slidesharenet.com/tonkallenberg
The paper will be available on:
https://leidenuniv.academia.edu/TonKallenberg
Ton Kallenberg
a.j.kallenberg@hum.leidenuniv.nl
Leiden University - The Netherlands