Working without a script : rethinking how academics can work collaboratively in changing contexts
Abstract :
This chapter argues that the scope of the academic role in art, design and media has shifted in recent years from predominantly teaching, practice and research to one that places greater emphasis on administration and other tasks, as a consequence of the wide range of policy, legislative and audit pressures to which institutions have had to respond. As a result academics are experiencing role fragmentation. This is particularly accentuated in the context of art, design and media higher education, where logistical and identity tensions already exist between the roles of practitioner and academic. The impact of increased pressures on the academic role is apparent through the stress levels documented for staff in the sector.
The authors propose that it is necessary to re-establish congruence between institutional mission and individual identity through a re-framing of the employment context of higher education by individuals and institutions. Potential models for such new working practices include ‘co-creation’.
The issues raised in this chapter will be of relevance to policy formers and makers, practitioners, those who manage and develop staff, new entrants, practitioners and teachers of art and design, and staff undertaking postgraduate qualifications in learning and teaching for higher education.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Does the chapter create the right diagnosis concerning the complexity of the HE environment and the impact on the identity and role of the academic ?
There was consensus that the academic’s role has indeed become more complex, and a feeling that this is in direct correlation to the increase in student numbers over the last few years. There was some discussion of the differences between England and the rest of the UK, where the complexity is perhaps better managed, and other countries, eg New Zealand, where possibly there was a more positive and collaborative response to continuous change. There was also a view that the larger the organisation, the more complex the role, and the more distant the decision making process seems to become from the practitioners.
How is complexity and role fragmentation ‘felt’ within art and design higher education, and what behaviours does it produce ?
Discussion focussed on the particular character of art & design HE, and the experiences of different types of academic. It was noted that the debate was disadvantaged by the lack of the student voice as a co-creator – a characteristic of effective change management which the chapter itself strongly recommends.
It was agreed that the greater reliance in Art & Design on part-time teachers, although beneficial to the student experience, puts greater pressure on these staff, as they juggle the demands of teaching with their practice, and on the full-time staff - and particularly programme leaders - who consequently take on more of the complexities of the job.
The behaviours identified in the chapter as symptomatic of resistance to change were familiar to most participants in the discussions. It was felt that the pressures of the job are felt most acutely, as the chapter points out, by programme leaders and by staff moving between roles. It was also suggested that clear strategies for succession planning can help to relieve these ‘pinch points’, as staff change their job roles. It was also suggested that where some staff struggle with their work, or adopt a negative response to it, there is a need to find ways to develop them or move them on quickly, before their deficiencies affect others in the team.
Can we deal with complexity and role fragmentation through different working practices ? What examples can we share ?
There was debate about the extent of autonomy within departments to enact change. Some changes can be managed at local levels, but others require institutional or indeed government action. There was also a belief that the precise roles of academic staff, programme leaders and managers may need to be clarified. It was generally agreed that improved leadership, communication, team-working, and clarity of purpose all help to relieve the pressures on academic staff created by constant change. It was also agreed that change too often unnecessarily adds extra administrative tasks, rather than replacing old systems with new ones.
Many see the effective use of technical and administrative staff as a key to improving the workload of academic staff, possibly by moving more staff from central departments to support academics within faculties. The appointment of business managers, and forming of business units using external funding, was also seen as a way of taking some of the pressures of external projects away from academics. It was noted that some of the externally funded projects currently supporting outreach work, such as the National Arts Learning Network, will soon end, adding to the pressures on academics.
Some of the group identified examples of workload planning from their institutions as successful solutions to sharing responsibilities and creating clarity in job roles. A ratio of 70% teaching / assessment against 30% for research and administrative roles was proposed as a reasonable formula.
Are there larger, more systemic changes required at the level of institutional mission, structures and values?
Delegates did not see any likelihood of the direction of HE, towards greater student numbers and more complexity, changing in the foreseeable future. Most also expected that resources will become more stretched as a consequence. It was also noted that this is an international phenomenon, and that lessons might be learned by studying other countries where change has perhaps been managed more successfully.
It was felt by some that the bureaucratic complexity created by QAA needs to be streamlined, since there has been little evidence that the current system of subject benchmark statements, programme specifications, learning outcomes etc. has led to significantly improved quality or greater standardisation across the sector.
The important role of leadership and management was stressed in discussion. It was felt that GLAD, ADM and other national subject specialist organisations could play a leading role in providing contextualised leadership and management development for staff at different levels in universities and colleges.