Search results

This chapter provides first insights into identities and communities of educational staff in one of the largest, multi-campus universities in Italy. This group of managers refers to those supporting teaching and learning in the light of emerging demands from the European strategy for universities which is positioning education at the frontline in today’s higher education institutions (HEIs).

These insights are compared with common issues surveyed among research managers and administrators (RMAs) working in the same as well as in other international HEIs using Evans’ ‘restricted’ and ‘extended’ models of professionalism.

Among findings, educational managers (EM) show awareness of their identity only as ‘professionals’ while RMAs may feel like ‘hybrid’ profiles. Unlike RMAs, EM report not having a strong sense of belonging to one community but feeling like they belong to a plethora of groups. In conclusion, there are no dominant ‘extended’ or ‘restricted’ traits for any of the two groups and they have both these attitudes to a certain extent as the results of this chapter will further explain.

Based on a review of professional staff (PS), which includes research managers and administrators, in 54 academic publications, I propose a novel definition for this category of staff: ‘degree holding university employees who are primarily responsible for developing, maintaining and changing the social, digital and physical infrastructures that enable education, research and knowledge exchange’. The proposed definition facilitates the development of new research questions that target the level of the organisational fields of higher education and science, to complement research on the university and individual levels. This view supports the study of the contributions of PS to higher education and science. I anticipate that such a broader focus will help to counter and nuance accounts of ‘administrative bloat’ by focusing on how PS as a group shape and are shaped by the organisational fields of higher education and science, rather than dismissing them as superfluous or parasitic.

This chapter delves into the evolving identity of professionals within the field of research management and administration (RMA), examining the shifts in their roles and expectations in the changing landscape in higher education. After the introductory section, Section 2 offers a conceptual framework that emphasises identity as a dynamic process rather than a static concept. This framework sheds light on the changing roles and expectations that define the RMA profession. In Section 3, we explore the contextual backdrop of shifting expectations surrounding RMA roles while stressing the importance of recognizing the multiplicity of identities to comprehend the nuances of the RMA profession. Section 4 analyzes empirical data and explore the diverse pathways that lead individuals into the RMA profession. We uncover that a notable proportion of RMAs possess scientific training and research experience and highlight the complexities surrounding the identity of RMAs with doctoral training (DRMAs). Lastly, Section 5 discusses key observations that yield valuable insights for future research on the evolving professional identity of RMAs. We emphasise that, through self-exploration and introspection, practitioners in the field can contribute to a deeper understanding of their roles and actively shape their professional identity.

Research managers and administrators (RMAs) should not be forgotten as part of the professional workforce populating today’s research ecosystems of universities or research institutes, with interactions and contributions that matter (Poli, 2018a). Unfortunately, since they are still often regarded as employees who are neither senior management nor researchers, their role still suffers vagueness and ambiguity (Allen-Collinson, 2009). Consequently, RMAs are still unrecognised and unacknowledged, and often misunderstood as support staff or bureaucrats (Rhoades, 2010). This country-specific case study of Cyprus introduces the readers to the Cypriot research ecosystem, so as to contextualise the landscape within which the Cypriot RMAs operate professionally. After briefly discussing the evolution of the RMA profession in Cyprus and glimpsing at what might be the current Cypriot RMA community, the chapter elaborates on RMA demographics derived from the ‘RMA in Cyprus Questionnaire’, which was formulated based on the RAAAP-3 survey. At its closure, the chapter proposes the establishment of the ‘CyARMA – Cyprus Association of Research Managers and Administrators’, as the body to advocate the standardisation, professionalisation and, more importantly, the recognition of the RMA profession in Cyprus.