This article was downloaded by: [University of Liverpool]On: 19 June 2015, At: 00:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Educational Administrationand HistoryPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjeh20

Protecting academic freedom inchanging times: the role of Heads ofDepartmentsAnne Qualter a & Ian Willis aa Educational Development Division , University of Liverpool ,Liverpool , UKPublished online: 26 Apr 2012.

To cite this article: Anne Qualter & Ian Willis (2012) Protecting academic freedom in changingtimes: the role of Heads of Departments, Journal of Educational Administration and History, 44:2,121-139, DOI: 10.1080/00220620.2012.658765

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2012.658765

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Protecting academic freedom in changing times: the role of Headsof Departments

Anne Qualter∗ and Ian Willis

Educational Development Division, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

In changing times for higher education that are dominated by a neoliberalideology, we set out to uncover how Heads of Departments (HoDs)perceive their role with respect to supporting their staff and theiracademic freedom. Freedom to pursue academic research is seen as keyto the generation of new knowledge yet it is potentially constrained byfunding regimes and university accountability systems. As HoDs operateat the interface between university systems and individual academicprojects, how they perceive their role can have a profound influence onthe working environment of their departmental staff. The research studyis located in two successful departments in a research intensive universityin England. The study shows that the HoDs were not captured by theneoliberal discourse and aimed to protect their staff so they could ‘get onwith their work’. In so doing they interpreted university demands to thebest advantage of their departments but were not active in challenginguniversity driven changes, thus raising questions about the effects ofaccommodating to change, so risking incremental change, and of howless successful departments might be able to protect their staff and theiracademic freedom.

Keywords: academic freedom; higher education; Heads of Departments;neoliberalism; change

Introduction

UK higher education, like other higher education systems around the world, isunder constant pressure to adapt to new demands and new initiatives. This isespecially so in an economic downturn when governments turn to universitiesto contribute more directly to economic recovery whilst at the same time impos-ing financial cuts. Yet for universities to thrive as creative generators of knowl-edge and independent thought it is argued that academics must retain a degreeof autonomy over their working lives.1 Historically, within most universities the

ISSN 0022-0620 print/ISSN 1478-7431 online

# 2012 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2012.658765

http://www.tandfonline.com

∗Corresponding author. Email: cd14@liverpool.ac.uk1UNESCO, Records of the General Conference 29th Session, Volume 1: Resolutions(Paris 21st October – 12th November 1997) (Paris: UNESCO Press, 1998).

Journal of Educational Administration and HistoryVol. 44, No. 2, May 2012, 121–139

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

00:

59 1

9 Ju

ne 2

015

academic department has been the principal work structure that has defined theway academics are able to operate. Indeed, in the 1980s British universitieswere seen as having an in-built weakness in that faculties and departmentswere able to exercise a veto over central institutional concerns.2 Today, theHead of Department (HoD) can be seen as having a crucial role in supportingacademic colleagues to retain autonomy rather than necessarily resisting insti-tutional initiatives. How this might be achieved in a climate of rapid change andincreasing pressure on universities to deliver more is a crucial question.

In this paper, we present the findings arising from interviews undertakenwith two heads of successful academic departments in a traditional, researchintensive university in England. The study seeks to address the question ofhow in the neoliberal, market-driven policy context, HoDs feel they canprotect and support academic staff and their freedom to pursue their own pro-jects. This is done by seeking to uncover the ways in which HoDs perceive theirrole. The project was designed to provide some insight into university middlemanagement with the intention of seeking pointers as to how HoDs support aca-demics through times of significant change. HoDs act as a buffer against and aconduit from the wider university, protecting staff so that they can get on withand enjoy their jobs. A wider question is how far HoDs are supporting change inthe purpose of universities by accommodating to that change and in turn howfar they are being changed by that change.

This paper begins with a discussion of the neoliberal context in which univer-sities operate, before considering the academic freedom of staff that is so impor-tant to research and teaching. The focus is then placed on the role of the HoD as abackground to the research before describing the approach taken to the selectionof two heads of successful research intensive departments in one university andinterviews conducted with them. Findings are then discussed with a focus ondeveloping an understanding of the way these two HoDs perceive their role inrelation to supporting staff and promoting the interests of their department. Inconclusion, we suggest that in seeking to protect staff from the effects ofchanges in university policy and the external pressures put on them, HoDsmay be accommodating to change in a way that subtly changes the environmentin which staff exercise their own freedom to act. Given that this is a study of twoHoDs who are in a very strong position within their university, it is argued thatfurther work needs to be undertaken to look at this issue in a more representativerange of departments and universities.

Neoliberalism and the bounds of freedom

The thrust of the neo-liberal reform agenda has been that economic prosperity islinked to the individual rather than to society as a whole, whereby the free

2H. Silver, ‘Does a University Have a Culture?’, Studies in Higher Education 28, no. 2(2003): 157–69.

122 A. Qualter and I. Willis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

00:

59 1

9 Ju

ne 2

015

market and business enterprise model provides, ‘universal and infallible sol-utions to the governmental and organizational problems that continue tobeset advanced capitalist societies’.3 This agenda places the primary focus ofconcern on to individual freedom of choice and away from a concern for thecommon good.4 Although the proposition that economic prosperity is linkedto the individual rather than society and therefore that the social good isachieved through the use of market mechanisms in all human transactions iscontested,5 the neoliberal approach seems likely to continue for a good whileyet despite challenges raised by the global recession. Across the world, econ-omies have been deregulated, trade liberalised and health and educationsystems dismantled in pursuit of higher profits. This approach is manifest:‘By rigorously imposing market forces, business discipline and managerialcontrol across the full range of public sector service provision’.6 The introduc-tion of ‘quasi markets for public services’7 has led to education being increas-ingly viewed as a commodity like any other commodity that can be bought andsold.

The characterisation of education as a commodity is problematic. Thestudent comes to be seen as a customer who is buying their education,8

with senior managers in universities more likely than junior academicstaff to describe them in this way.9 The notion of the customer–supplierrelationship undermines the much more complex and productive relation-ships where students are viewed as contributing to their own education,10

as ‘members of a “community” of learners and knowers’ in which staffchallenge their thinking, encourage them to engage with new ideas11 and

3R. Deem, S. Hillyard, and M. Reed, Knowledge, Higher Education, and the New Man-agerialism: The Changing Management of UK Universities (Oxford: Oxford Univer-sity Press, 2008), 9.4B. Davies and P. Bansel, ‘Neo-liberalism and Education’, International Journal ofQualitative Studies in Education 20, no. 3 (2007): 247–59.5M.J. Sandel, ‘A new Citizenship: A New Politics of the Common Good’ (BBC ReithLecture series, June 26, 2009).6Deem et al., Knowledge, 9.7R. Deem and K. Brehony, ‘Management as Ideology: The case of “New Managerial-ism” in Higher Education’, Oxford Review of Education 31, no. 2 (2005): 217–35.8L. Eagle and R. Brennan, ‘Are Students Customers? TQM and Marketing Perspec-tives’, Quality Assurance in Education 15, no. 4 (2007): 44–60.9L. Lomas, ‘Are Students Customers? Perceptions of Academic Staff’, Quality inHigher Education 13, no. 1 (2007): 31–44.10J.R.B. Halbesleben, J.A.H. Becker, and M.R. Buckley, ‘Considering the Labor Con-tributions of Students: An Alternative to the Student-as-Customer Metaphor’, Journalof Education for Business 78, no. 5 (2003): 255–7.11J.A. Newson, ‘Disrupting the “Student as Consumer” Model: The New EmancipatoryProject’, International Relations 18, no. 2 (2004): 227–39.

Journal of Educational Administration and History 123

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

00:

59 1

9 Ju

ne 2

015

ultimately judge them on achieving the goals set for them.12 The marketmetaphor is challenged as valueless in supporting the education of studentsand the relationship between students and the staff who teach them13 andindeed could be detrimental to the students’ educational progress.14 Thispresents a challenge to staff and students as the systems of accountabilitythat reinforce the customer–supplier concept become more widespread inhigher education.

Accountability systems, such as the publishing of quality measures, aredesigned to improve performance and delivery by providing the customer,who might be in the market for education, knowledge exchange opportu-nities or research, with the means to compare the market. However, thefreedom to choose is regulated so that higher education institutions and indi-vidual staff must operate within externally imposed boundaries of account-ability. In order to ensure compliance, higher education institutions needto introduce management structures of the kind that any responsible businessoperating in a market might be expected to employ.15 Systems of account-ability act to restrict freedom to narrow boundaries, reducing individualagency rather than removing it altogether.16 Trowler explores the propositionthat the discourse of managerialism and markets invades the language ofeducational institutions,17 and in so doing introduces discursive repertoiresthat may in turn limit the options available for thought and for thesharing of ideas. This then undermines the academic freedom, defined byNeave as ‘the right of staff in higher education to determine the nature oftheir work’, which he argues must be protected if academic work is to beproductive.18

12G. Sharrock, ‘Why Students Are Not (Just) Customers (and Other Reflections on LifeAfter George)’, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 22, no. 2 (2000):149–64.13Eagle and Brennan, ‘Are Students Customers’, 44–60.14D. Clayson and D. Haley, ‘Marketing Models in Education: Students As Customers,Products, or Partners’, Marketing Education Review 15, no. 1 (2005): 1–10.15E. Hoyle and M. Wallace, Educational Leadership: Ambiguity, Professionals andManagerialism (London: Sage, 2005); OPSR, Reforming Our Public Services. Prin-ciples into Practice (London: Office of Public Service Reform, 2002), http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/opsr/documents/pdf/principles.pdf (accessed June 20, 2009).16S. Marginson, ‘Hayekian Neo-liberalism and Academic Freedom’ (keynote addressto Philosophy of Education Society of Australia, Women’s College, University ofSydney, November 23, 2006).17P. Trowler, ‘Captured by the Discourse? The Socially Constitutive Power of NewHigher Education Discourse in the UK’, Organization 8, no. 2 (2001): 183–201.18G. Neave, ‘On the Cultivation of Quality, Efficiency and Enterprise: An Overview ofRecent Trends in Higher Education in Western Europe, 1986–1988’, EuropeanJournal of Education 23, nos. 1/2 (1988): 7–23.

124 A. Qualter and I. Willis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

00:

59 1

9 Ju

ne 2

015

Universities, change, and the language of the market

Higher education institutions have been subject to change both in response tothe neoliberal turn, and as a result of explicit exhortations to change in orderto better serve the prevailing hegemony. The 1988 report by the World Bankespoused principles that led governments to see the ways traditional universitiesare structured and managed as obstacles to the marketisation of education andthe management of knowledge produced by research.19

In the UK, vice chancellors were encouraged to become chief executivescreating strategic plans to manage the corporate enterprise that universitiesshould become.20 In the United States, the majority of institutions of asample group drawn from the top 127 research universities had developed stra-tegic plans and adopted a neoliberal discourse of global markets and inter-national ‘reach’.21 Similar shifts occurred in Australia where Davies,Gottsche, and Bansel suggest that management has replaced leadership as theprimary role of presidents and vice chancellors.22 Such shifts are achievedthrough system changes to streamline processes, in order to make universitiesmore efficient, competitive, entrepreneurial and focused on the bottom line.23

This type of strategic change is shown in the UK Higher Education FundingCouncil’s 2006–11 strategic plan on ‘Enhancing the contribution of HigherEducation to the economy and society’ that exemplifies an increasing emphasison universities working with business and developing employability skills intheir students.24

There is a tension between the increasingly managerial approach to stra-tegic change and the historically collegial nature of UK universities.25 ViceChancellors, particularly of the older, traditional universities, continue toargue that the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake is the core purpose of

19P. Clegg, ‘Creativity and Critical Thinking in the Globalised University’, Innovationsin Education and Teaching International 4, no. 3 (2008): 219–26.20Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, Report of the Steering Committee forEfficiency Studies in Universities (Jarratt Report) (London: CVCP, Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, 1985); M. Henkel, ‘Academic Identity and Autonomy in aChanging Policy Environment’, Higher Education 49, no. 1 (2005): 155–76.21F. Gaffikin and D. Perry, ‘Discourses and Strategic Visions: The U.S. Research Uni-versity as an Institutional Manifestation of Neoliberalism in a Global Era’, AmericanEducational Research Journal 46, no. 1 (2009): 115–44.22B. Davies, M. Gottsche, and P. Bansel, ‘The Rise and Fall of the Neo-Liberal Univer-sity’, European Journal of Education 41, no. 2 (2006): 305–19.23Marginson, ‘Hayekian Neo-liberalism’.24HEFCE, ‘Strategic Plan, 2006–2011’, Higher Education Funding Council forEngland, http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2006/06_13/06_13.pdf (accessed July 5,2009).25M. Henkel, ‘Emerging Concepts of Academic Leadership and their Implications forIntra-Institutional Roles and Relationships in Higher Education’, European Journal ofEducation 37, no. 1 (2002): 29–41.

Journal of Educational Administration and History 125

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

00:

59 1

9 Ju

ne 2

015

the universities.26 The freedom to pursue knowledge and to share with stu-dents the value of knowledge for its own sake requires academics to be freeto choose their own projects in an environment that facilitates creativity.27

It seems that traditional collegial structures lend themselves to affordingthese freedoms. Gumport, drawing on an extensive set of case studies in theUnited States,28 goes as far as to suggest that we are at a defining momentin the history of higher education. She argues that the reorganisation of uni-versities to meet modern needs of industry, marketisation, accountabilityand efficiency could actually change the purpose of universities. Similarly,Barnett raises questions about the purpose of universities in a changing world:

Is the university to be a site of democratic rights, of societal enlightenment, ofknowledge production for a technological society, of inculcating skills for theworkplace, of personal transformation or of critical analysis? Is it to get bythrough its own wits, transforming itself to take on the image of any client orstate agency that comes its way or is it to maintain some kind of allegiance to asense of an enduring entity? Are its internal processes to be characterised bytight managerial disciplines that enable it to live ‘in the real world’ or is it toforge, within itself, a new kind of organic community?29

Much of the literature where these issues are discussed tends to set the freedomof universities to pursue knowledge against the alternative of meeting marketneeds. Barnett appears to be suggesting that these alternatives may not bemutually exclusive. It is intriguing to consider then how far academics and inparticular HoDs are acting as a defence against the encroachment of the ‘realworld’, or as a facilitator of change to accommodate to the new managerialism,or, as Barnet suggests, finding a way to a new kind of status quo that allowstraditional academic values to thrive in a market-driven environment.30

Academic freedom

The tension encapsulated in the questions posed by Barnett must affect groupsand individuals within universities as they steer a course through their pro-fessional lives. As they form their academic identities: ‘the enduring beliefs,values, motives and experiences that are characteristic of individuals who

26C. Brink, ‘What Are Universities For?’ (lecture, Newcastle University, Newcastle,November 27, 2007).27P. Knight and P. Trowler, ‘Department-Level Cultures and the Improvement ofLearning and Teaching’, Studies in Higher Education 25, no. 1 (2000): 69–83.28P. Gumport, ‘Academic Restructuring: Organizational Change and InstitutionalImperatives’, Higher Education 39, no. 1 (2000): 67–91.29R. Barnett, ‘The Purposes of Higher Education and the Changing Face of Academia’,London Review of Education 2, no. 1 (2004): 61–73, 70.30Barnett, ‘Purposes of Higher Education’, 61–73.

126 A. Qualter and I. Willis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

00:

59 1

9 Ju

ne 2

015

enact the same professional role’31 and as they relate to their university and theirdiscipline, staff acquire expectations in respect of enjoying a high level of pro-fessional discretion and freedom. Identities are formed through the engagementof individuals within a wider group of academics, through mutual recognitionof the status of members of the discipline and through the subsequent sharingof myths and language of the group.32 Hence professional academic identitiesare most readily established in relatively stable environments.33

Yet higher education is a fast-changing, complex and demanding arena inwhich to work, with increasing pressure from internal and external agendasacting in different ways where there is no single higher education culture butsubunits or professional groups.34 These higher education subunits areformed from a nexus of different cultures centred on the discipline and aca-demic department. The particular academic culture experienced by an individ-ual is the confluence of the knowledge or discipline-based culture and theinstitutional culture with staff gathered together for convenience in academicdepartments that must then adhere to the norms of the university in whichthey find themselves.35 Academics define themselves from the ‘inside out’based on their disciplinary culture but in turn must work within an ‘outsidein’ definition based on university managerial and accountability systems.36

Hence the external definition of the professional group is based on qualitymeasures such as, in the UK, the Research Assessment Exercise, NationalStudent Survey results, Quality Assurance Agency audit reports and thevarious league tables that currently abound. Academics within universitiesinevitably find themselves steering a tricky path to find stability in the spacesbetween the competing internal and external pressures whilst protecting theirright to determine the nature of their own work and so retaining their academicfreedom. The key to the stability of the environment, it would seem, is thisability of staff to make their own decisions concerning the characteristics anddirection of their work. The right to academic freedom was adopted by thegeneral conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganisation (UNESCO) in 1997 and has since been used by many universitiesin the UK and beyond:

31R. Winter, ‘Academic Manager or Managed Academic? Academic Identity Schismsin Higher Education’, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 31, no. 2(2009): 121–31, 122.32R. Jenkins, Social Identity (London: Routledge, 1996).33B. Bernstein, Pedagogy, Symbolic Control, and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique(London: Taylor & Francis, 1996).34Silver, ‘Does a University Have a Culture?’35K. Williams, ‘Troubling the Concept of the “Academic Profession” in 21st CenturyHigher Education’, Higher Education 56, no. 5 (2008): 533–44.36I. Stronach et al., ‘Towards an Uncertain Politics of Professionalism: Teacher andNurse Identities in Flux’, Journal of Education Policy 17, no. 1 (2002): 109–38.

Journal of Educational Administration and History 127

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

00:

59 1

9 Ju

ne 2

015

[Academic freedom is] the right, without constriction by prescribed doctrine, tofreedom of teaching and discussion, freedom in carrying out research and disse-minating and publishing the results thereof, freedom to express freely theiropinion about the institution or system in which they work, freedom from insti-tutional censorship and freedom to participate in professional or representativeacademic bodies.37

The concept of academic freedom is a contested one, it is an ideal which can bedifferently interpreted and as such is problematic.38 However, for the purposesof this study, given its interests in the perspective of HoDs, the views of aca-demics concerning academic freedom as described in a study by Henkel aretaken as a starting point. Academic freedom emerged as a dominant theme inan interview study of 300 academics and institutional leaders in Englandwhere it meant the freedom to determine individual research directions and inbeing allowed to exercise a degree of autonomy in managing their ownworking life.39

This autonomy is challenged in a number of ways. The choice of research,for example, is clearly influenced by the availability of resources. Over the lastfour decades research councils have adopted a more rationalist approach tomaking awards, with greater influence of industrialists and an emphasis onresearch with clear applications. The tension resulting from this shift in empha-sis was identified by Bennich-Bjorkman in a study of Swedish academics.40

They concluded that the rationalist approach challenged the survival ofresearcher-selected, often long-term, aims of work previously funded fromwithin university budgets in the face of the short-term objectives where moreimmediate returns are required by external research councils and otherfunding agencies.

Insight into the impact of these and other changes on the development ofearly career academics (under the age of 35) is provided in a small-scale inter-view study by Archer.41 The interviewees, like those in Henkel’s study, valuedacademic freedom, criticality and collegiality as crucial to them as pro-fessionals. The study goes some way to support the notion that individual aca-demic freedom is restricted by systems of accountability42 and by the

37UNESCO, Records of the General Conference, 30.38D. Hayes, ‘Academic Freedom and the Diminished Subject’, British Journal of Edu-cational Studies 57, no. 2 (2009): 127–45.39M. Henkel, ‘The Demise of the Dominant Culture? Higher Education Institutions inTransition’, Learning and Teaching in the Social Sciences 1, no. 1 (2004): 21–32.40L. Bennich-Bjorkman, ‘Has Academic Freedom Survived? An Interview Study of theConditions for Researchers in an Era of Paradigmatic Change’, Higher EducationQuarterly 61, no. 3 (2004): 334–63.41L. Archer, ‘The New Neoliberal Subjects? Young/er Academics’ Constructions ofProfessional Identity’, Journal of Education Policy 23, no. 3 (2008): 265–85.42Marginson, ‘Hayekian Neo-liberalism’.

128 A. Qualter and I. Willis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

00:

59 1

9 Ju

ne 2

015

limitations of a discourse of managerialism experienced by this group.43

However, Archer does identify ways in which these early career academics,despite a sense of loss at the lack of time, were finding ‘spaces’ in which todevelop their own projects, to think critically and to challenge acceptednorms. The democratic environments that support these ‘spaces’ are ofcrucial importance to the future of academia.44

The role of the HoD

Hammersley-Fletcher and Qualter considered two educational sites: primaryschool and higher education.45 They concluded that in both cases the abilityof staff to exercise professional responsibility and academic freedom mustlargely depend on managers protecting them from the encroachment of activi-ties that would fill the spaces needed for creative work. Given the argument pre-sented above that the academic department is the key cultural subunit, it wouldseem then that HoDs are at the critical point of academic influence.46

Over recent decades the role of HoD has changed as departments havegrown due to the increases in student numbers and amalgamations into largerunits in pursuit of efficiency. Yet, at least until the 1990s 80% of decisionmaking in universities was made at the departmental level.47 The increasingcomplexity of the role has led to the need for more administrative skills andsupport, financial management skills and entrepreneurial abilities as the workof academic departments diversifies and intensifies.48 Yet despite the increasedadministrative burdens, the findings of a study in the United States did notsuggest that the administrative tasks were seen as overwhelming by HoDs.49

The five most important tasks were: encouraging research and publication,assigning teaching, research and other duties, evaluating staff performance,ensuring a conducive work environment and encouraging professionaldevelopment.

In a literature review and interview study with senior managers, ensuring aconducive work environment also emerged as an important ‘facet of leadership’

43P. Trowler, ‘Captured by the Discourse’, 183–201.44UNESCO, Records of the General Conference.45L. Hammersley-Fletcher and A. Qualter, ‘From Schools to Higher Education – Neo-liberal Agendas and Implications for Autonomy’, Journal of Educational Adminis-tration and History 41, no. 4 (2009): 363–75.46P. Ramsden, Learning to Lead in Higher Education (London: Routledge, 1998).47Wolverton et al., ‘Stress in Academic Leadership: U.S. and Australian DepartmentChairs/Heads’, Review of Higher Education 22, no. 2 (1999): 165–85.48P. Hare and L. Hare, ‘The Evolving Role of Head of Department in UK Universities’,Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education 6, no. 2 (2002): 33–7.49P. Aggarwal, L. Rochford, and R. Vaidyanathan, ‘The Hot Seat: Profiling the Market-ing Department Chair’, Journal of Marketing Education 31, no. 1 (2009): 40–51.

Journal of Educational Administration and History 129

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

00:

59 1

9 Ju

ne 2

015

for HoDs and other institutional leaders. Other ‘facets of leadership’ shown inthe study included personal qualities such as integrity, trustworthiness andcredibility as a role model.50 Ensuring a conducive work environment includesshowing respect for the existing culture of the department and having the skillsto support a collegial environment which is protective of staff autonomy. Build-ing on from that review, Bryman and Lilley interviewed a sample of academicsinvolved in researching leadership and management in different settings.51

They asked them to describe effective leaders in higher education. In mostcases the characteristics mentioned were similar to those identified by the inter-viewees from their work in other settings. However, approximately a quarter ofthe interviewees said that effective leaders protected staff, linking this to theessential autonomy required for academics to get on with their research andteaching. Drawing on a large-scale study, Henkel argued that academic depart-ments have, for the most part, been successful in accommodating significantimposed changes within their ‘overriding concerns to sustain disciplinaryvalues and knowledge’.52 However, the ‘strength’ of departments to resist orreshape such requirements determines how far they are able to do this. In thiscase strength tends to reflect descriptions ‘from the outside in’ which currentlyplace significant emphasis on research productivity.53 Commercial value andreputation also contribute to the strength to resist interventions. It is likelythat academics would be more or less able to find the spaces to pursue theirown projects depending on the strength of the department and the ability ofthe HoD to use this strength to achieve a working environment that is conduciveto the needs of academics. This in turn raises the question as to how HoDs seetheir role in the university of today. The study reported here addresses this ques-tion with a view to understanding better how HoDs might exercise their depart-mental strength to ensure that they are able to support staff.

The study

Emerging from the above discussion is a recognition that, shaped as they are bymany factors, departmental cultures are different and diverse. It is also likelythat departments that are considered ‘weak’ by their university are less likelyto be able to resist the external pressures on them. It was therefore decidednot to attempt to select a representative sample of HoDs and departments or

50A. Bryman, Effective Leadership in Higher Education: Summary of Findings. Researchand Development Series (London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, 2007),http://hr.ku.dk/strategi_og_projekter/effectiveleadershipinhighereducation.pdf (accessedJuly 20, 2009).51A. Bryman and S. Lilley, ‘Leadership Researchers on Leadership in Higher Edu-cation’, Leadership 5, no. 3 (2009): 331–46.52Henkel, ‘Demise of the Dominant Culture’, 27.53Knight and Trowler, ‘Department-Level Cultures’, 69–83.

130 A. Qualter and I. Willis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

00:

59 1

9 Ju

ne 2

015

to seek to cover a full spectrum of ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ departments, but to ident-ify two that might be considered to be ideally placed to make choices and tosupport staff to maximise the quality of their work.

For this exploratory study two HoDs from the same research intensive uni-versity were selected for interview, one from a STEM (Science, Technology,Engineering, and Mathematics) department and one from a HASS (Humanities,Arts and Social Science) department. Both would be considered strong in thatthey emerged well from the Research Assessment Exercise, have relativelyhealthy recruitment of students, have good scores in National StudentSurveys and so, it is assumed, have been well led.54 The departments are notunusual in size or structure when compared to other research focused depart-ments in their discipline and are similar to many others in their university.Although they both have similar numbers of academic staff, the STEM depart-ment has about half the number of undergraduates as the HASS department, butvery many more research staff, making it a much larger entity. This reflects thesituation in similar universities. The University of Sheffield, for example, hasroughly equal numbers of academic and research staff with the latter concen-trated in the STEM areas.55 As is common in traditional UK universities, thepost of HoD is usually taken up by a member of the professoriate for aperiod of 4 or 5 years.56 New HoDs are likely to experience a degree ofstress during the transition period as they reframe relationships with col-leagues.57 Seniority within the department is recognised as smoothing the tran-sition and helping them to establish themselves in their new role.58 Both of theselected HoDs were established professors, who had been in post for at least ayear, neither was due to step down, and in both cases the previous HoDremained in the department and could be called upon if required. One HoDhad joined from another research intensive university within the previous fiveyears, but had been able to shadow the previous HoD for several monthsbefore taking over. The other had very short notice before taking on the role,although in this case the HoD had worked in the university for many yearsand had had a number of administrative roles during that time. Thus, theselected HoDs represent the most favourably placed in the role and one

54Martin et al., ‘Variation in the Experience of Leadership of Teaching in Higher Edu-cation’, Studies in Higher Education 28, no. 3 (2003): 247–59.55D.A. Madden, ‘Managing for the Ideal Research Environment’, Journal of HigherEducation Policy and Management 31, no. 3 (2009): 271–82.56D. Farnham, The United Kingdom: The End of the Donnish Dominion? ManagingAcademic Staff in Changing University Systems. International Trends and Comparison(Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press,1999).57Aggarwal et al., ‘The Hot Seat’, 40–51.58W.H. Gmelch and J.S. Burns, ‘The Cost of Academic Leadership: Department ChairStress’, Innovative Higher Education 17, no. 4 (1993): 259–70.

Journal of Educational Administration and History 131

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

00:

59 1

9 Ju

ne 2

015

occupied by relatively few even in a traditional research intensive university.The particular type of university and the selected HoDs inevitably limits theclaims that can be made from the data generated. However, the findings canbe expected to resonate with the situation in other universities as they are onelocal representation in response to the broad reform agenda for public sectorreform.

Ethical approval was sought and received from the university for the study,and the HoDs were approached via email by the first author, who knew bothslightly. The HoDs were informed that the purpose of the study was to be anexploratory one to consider their perceptions of their own role. A set of ques-tions was sent to each HoD prior to interview. These questions were asneutral as possible, beginning with some background questions and movingon to questions about the role in respect of departmental staff, senior managersand external bodies. The intention was to offer some structure to the interviewsand to allow the interviewee the freedom to influence the agenda. The inter-views were recorded, transcribed and returned. At this point the HoDs werereminded that they could withdraw from the study at any time, and they wereoffered the option of adding any further points, withdrawing or amendingany aspects they did not wish to have included. No changes were made andboth agreed that the transcripts were an accurate record.

The two transcripts were subjected to thematic analysis using NVivo soft-ware. The study was designed to be as open as possible; however, this doesnot mean that the interviewer did not seek to answer a question. Indeed thequestion about the perceived role of the HoD emerged from extensivereading of the literature which in turn resonated with a personal experienceof departmental headship. The intention in the analysis was not to providethick, rich descriptions of the role of a HoD, but rather to ‘capture somethingimportant about the data in relation to the research question’.59 Hence theapproach was not purely inductive, allowing themes to emerge from the data,nor was it purely theoretically driven, testing out a predetermined framework.Rather, certain themes were anticipated and hence ‘looked for’, while otherswere identified as important to the question posed, but not necessarily antici-pated. Although the temptation is to see a theme as somehow more meaningfulif it was identified in both responses, this was resisted as reductive, especially asthere are only two interviewees in different faculties of a large and diverseuniversity.

Four main themes or topics were identified. These were ‘preparation for andsupport in the role’, ‘networks’, ‘research structures’ and ‘the HoD role’. Eachbroke down into a small number of sub-themes, with significant overlaps, par-ticularly between ‘preparation for the role’, ‘networks’ and ‘research

59V. Braun and V. Clarke, ‘Thematic Analysis in Psychology’, Qualitative Research inPsychology 3, no. 2 (2006): 77–101, 82.

132 A. Qualter and I. Willis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

00:

59 1

9 Ju

ne 2

015

structures’. The role of the HoD was coded into sub-themes which included:delegation, management structures, staffing issues, interface with the univer-sity, and delivery of teaching. However, themes more relevant to the researchquestion cut across these topics, helping to reveal the underlying conceptionsof the role. Findings are discussed under the theme headings, with the firsttwo discussed as one. The research structures theme is then covered in moredetail, with all three acting to set the context for the fourth.

Findings

Preparation for and support in the role, and networks

Both HoDs felt well prepared for their role, despite one’s lack of forewarning.In both cases they felt that they had learned simply by having been in the depart-ment for a while and having undertaken one or more of the departmental roles.However, the HoD who had little specific preparation commented that the jobwas completely different to the other roles with many tasks that were new, suchas finance, staffing issues, dealing with contracts and dealing with senior man-agers. Both HoDs had taken advantage of a training course offered by the uni-versity. This was not set up to teach management techniques, rather, it wasdescribed by both as a very good networking opportunity in terms of meetingand getting to know the roles of the heads of the various professional servicesections, but also meeting other HoDs from across the university.

Both HoDs discussed their membership of, and the value they gained from,internal and external networks including disciplinary research networks. Bothwere also members of specific HoD networks within their discipline, whosemeetings were organised to discuss topical issues such as the forthcomingnational assessment of research quality:

Obviously to some extent we are competitors with regard to student recruitment. . . but at the end of the day we are all facing the same challenges and it makessense to talk things through together . . ., I always find that that helps becauseit’s always important to know whether something one has to deal with is aunique case that one has to find a solution for or whether something is actuallyreoccurring or you know, sometimes it’s just about the facts and figures in a . . .how many students are the appropriate number on the [discipline] masters andthese kinds of things . . .. (HASS)

At the time of the study the university had approximately 20,000 studentsand 5000 staff and was organised into six faculties, each made up of anumber of academic departments of varying sizes. Deans had oversight oftheir faculties and acted as a communicator between senior managers andHoDs. However, budgets were devolved to academic departments, withHoDs having a significant role in planning, managing staff and setting the stra-tegic direction. Support for HoDs was provided through a small team of staff

Journal of Educational Administration and History 133

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

00:

59 1

9 Ju

ne 2

015

from the centrally managed professional services, including a member from theHuman Resources, Planning and Development, and Finance sections of pro-fessional services. The university had a number of systems in place to enableHoDs to meet regularly. Deans, for example, ran regular faculty meetingswhich both HoDs found useful, although the larger STEM faculty meetingswere rather shorter and more about information dissemination than thesmaller, lengthier, more interactive HASS faculty meetings. The latter wereseen as very useful, while the former were less so. The HASS HoD alsodescribed informal meetings with other HoDs to discuss particular commonissues. These were generally linked to research groupings and joint degree pro-grammes, but also to discuss changes in university structures that might have animpact on them. The STEM HoD saw internal networking as rather less impor-tant, although there were some meetings to discuss the well-established cross-disciplinary research teams. The greater emphasis on internal research network-ing on the part of the HASS HoD reflects the greater overlap between depart-ments in terms of research structures.

Thus it seems that, in the case of these two HoDs, they developed theirunderstanding of the role, firstly from observing and working with their prede-cessor and then by networking with other HoDs. They acted as intermediariesbetween the wider university and their departmental staff, but a sense of main-taining continuity rather than any focus on change prevailed.

Research structures

The STEM department is organised along traditional science research lines,with fairly autonomous research teams made up in the main of lead academics,research staff, technicians and research students. Departmental staff meetingsinvolve only academics (lecturers and professors) and senior teaching staff.Research team meetings are organised separately by the team leader:

Each group has their own meetings where staff interact with researchers and tech-nicians and so on and we don’t interfere with those interactions really unless thereis a problem of some sort. So research group leaders are quite an important part ofthe operation, for example for [annual performance review] processes we devolvethose to groups to carry out. (STEM)

Considerable value was seen as accruing from this system of research teams assites of knowledge creation and of nurture and support of early career research-ers and students and therefore how the discipline retains and reproduces itself.60

The independence of the research groupings from university interference is seen

60S. Delamont, O. Parry, and P. Atkinson, ‘Critical Mass and Pedagogic Continuity:Studies in Academic Habitus’, British Journal of Sociology of Education 18, no. 4(1997): 533–49.

134 A. Qualter and I. Willis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

00:

59 1

9 Ju

ne 2

015

by the HoD as essential. Indeed it might be said that the department is merelythe host to separate self-motivated and self-directed individuals and groups:‘Like rich peasants, they till their own patch but display little desire for collec-tive action and little interest in the larger university’.61 Yet if independencefrom central control is valued, isolation from colleagues in the department isnot. The STEM HoD considered informal opportunities for interactionbetween colleagues to be essential to the vibrancy of the research culture.The departmental common room, particularly where tea is served at specifictimes and functions to draw staff together, was something that the HoD waswilling to defend against any and all challenges.

The HASS research structures are rather more fluid than those described inthe STEM department. There are much smaller numbers of research staff, hencemost staff teach and do research. Traditionally HASS research is more of anindividual activity. However, the greater amount of networking amongstfellow HASS HoDs described above reflects the way of operating: ‘it’s difficultto describe because it’s not just one clear cut structure, it’s a kind of intersectionof various activities’ (HASS). Research structures then reflect themes across thefaculty and indeed beyond into the community, with links at a range of levels offormality across and beyond departments:

So with some things you know they have to write their [publications] on their own,we can’t change that but other things it helps to work in a group, for example,funding applications, they require a lot of time and effort and it’s so much easierif one doesn’t have to do it on one’s own all the time. So that’s where we try tochange culture in a way. Some colleagues are very happy with the idea, so somethings are going ahead really well, others are a bit more sceptical – that’s fairenough because they’ve worked in different ways for a long time. We’re notforcing anybody to do anything in particular, we’re very good teachers youknow, we’re trying to tell colleagues what could be done. Some people pick itup and do something with it and then the others can see how it works and canmake their own decision whether they want to do this as well. (HASS)

The HASS HoD, reflecting Neave’s view of academic freedom,62 is respectful ofthe right of staff to determine their own work, and recognises the need to retain thecommunity of scholars. However, the HoD’s approach also reflects changes occur-ring in the non-STEM areas as described by Bakhshi, Schneider, and Walker:

Yet the ‘lone scholar’ is a severely outdated model of the arts and humanitiesresearcher. Arts and humanities researchers join with scientists to tacklecomplex societal problems. They work increasingly in collaborative teamsinside and outside academia . . . Even in areas where individual research is

61J. Dearlove, ‘A Continuing Role for Academics: The Governance of UK Universitiesin the Post Dearing Era’, Higher Education Quarterly 56, no. 3 (2002): 257–75, 267.62Neave, ‘On the Cultivation of Quality, Efficiency and Enterprise’.

Journal of Educational Administration and History 135

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

00:

59 1

9 Ju

ne 2

015

widely used, the term ‘lone scholar’ denies the associations and exchange of ideasacross the research community.63

The HoD is engaged here in a very gentle push towards culture change to bettermeet the changing external environment that is being created by funding coun-cils. The funding councils are encouraging structures that engender greater col-laboration, ‘and the co-production of knowledge with researchers in otherdisciplines and with non-academic stakeholders in the private, public andthird sectors, both in the UK and internationally’.64 The HASS HoD also com-mented that the existence of research groupings made it easier to negotiate withsenior managers because they understand and can identify with this as many arefrom science disciplinary backgrounds.

The structures for staff meeting and discussing ideas are designed for con-tinuity. Research staff in the STEM department meet in research groups inorder to discuss research, cementing the sense of the team. Meetings concerningteaching are separate. The HoD in HASS recognises a need to change the wayresearch is managed, but is taking it very slowly, relying on persuasion but notenforcing consensus. This slow pace of change may be possible, and theapproach most likely to succeed, in departments that are already ‘strong’ inresearch terms. However, the rate of change internally and external to univer-sities may yet require a faster pace even for such departments.

The HoD role

In neither case did the HoDs see their roles as introducing significant change. Thedepartments were successful and so continuity and keeping on top was the key:

As Head of Department you basically have to learn where everything fits togetheras quickly as possible. But as I’ve said, we’ve pretty much established structuresalthough I’ve made some changes but nothing drastic. (STEM)

HoDs had to learn systems as quickly as possible in order to ensure that thedepartments run as smoothly as possible. This meant spending a large pro-portion of their time dealing with administrative issues and solving problemsthat originated from the central systems of the university. Indeed, this part ofthe HoD role, although at times frustrating, needed to be understood and nego-tiated. For example, dealing with people on short-term contracts: ‘because it’speople’s careers, people’s lives’ (STEM).

63H. Bakhshi, P. Schneider, and C. Walker, Arts and Humanities Research and Inno-vation (Bristol and London: AHRC and NESTA, 2008), 2, http://www.nesta.org.uk/library/documents/arts-humanities-innovation-report.pdf (accessed July 1, 2009).64Arts and Humanities Research Council, ‘Arts and Humanities Research CouncilDelivery Plan, 2008–2011’ (Bristol: AHRC, 2008), 2, http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/About/Policy/Documents/deliveryplanrefreshed08.pdf (accessed July 3, 2009).

136 A. Qualter and I. Willis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

00:

59 1

9 Ju

ne 2

015

This maintenance involves more than simply managing the system; animportant element involves ameliorating the effects of external changes thatimpact the department to ensure that there is no negative impact. Thus in onedifficult situation the HoD said:

I tried my best to give them reassurance that we would find a way of dealing withthis and working with this, and that there is a way of dealing with this, and I amstarting to believe it too! . . . but that is obviously my role. (HASS)

The key role of communicator as described by both HoDs is one of translator,and indeed careful presenter of issues that will impact on staff. The HoD is theconduit from the senior managers to staff:

I think if there’s one person in charge doing these things and all the others, all mycolleagues can go about their research or their teaching and just enjoy their jobsand don’t have to need to worry whether this fits within the University StrategicPlan or not because there can be, well I mean obviously they all cooperate inmaking sure that we make the most of the Strategic Plan but you know, wellhow things actually fit together only I need to think about. (HASS)

In neither case did the HoDs talk about any possible influence they might exert onwider university strategic direction. Indeed one explained that they saw strategyin terms of the department as quite different from strategy at university level.Where there were questions about any changes to systems or structures theywere in terms of how well they would suit the department rather than in termsof presenting any real challenge to the changes. The HoDs welcomed opportu-nities to receive information directly from the senior managers and valued oppor-tunities to have discussions with them. They would have liked more directcontact with senior managers than the more hierarchical systems now in placeallowed. Both ruefully commented on earlier, flatter systems. The HoDs inthese two cases saw themselves as the protector of academic freedom and amediator of change, where mediation often means acting to find ways todeflect or ‘soften the blow’ of change so that staff are free to get on with theirwork.

Conclusions

The two HoDs interviewed do not feel threatened by the changes that are hap-pening around them. They believe that the university will support them andenable them to continue operating as they have been doing. Rather thanseeing themselves as exercising a veto, as may have been the case in thepast,65 they see themselves as a buffer between the university and the depart-ment. They are fully in tune with the departmental culture and see no reason

65Silver, ‘Does a University Have a Culture?’

Journal of Educational Administration and History 137

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

00:

59 1

9 Ju

ne 2

015

to change it, other than in ways that will maximise their departmental successes.Thus these HoDs interpret the information coming from senior managers in theform of briefings, university policy documents and funding decisions and con-sider ways in which they might support the department in accommodating tochanges that might, in the longer run, give them advantage:

A strategy of accommodation may prove to be either one of accommodating[change] within existing frames of reference or accommodating to it. Newlanguages and new modes of management may gradually be assimilated,leaving individuals and departments more in tune with, and able to adapt to, achanging environment but with their values, beliefs and agendas essentially undis-turbed. ‘New languages and modes of management may, however, also exercisetheir own influence and create substantial long-term change in academic valuesand practices and in how they are regulated’.66

The two HoDs interviewed did not make particular use of the language associ-ated with managerialist, or neoliberal agendas. This does not mean that they arenot familiar with, or do not use the language where it is appropriate. It may bethat HoDs are bi-lingual, similar to the Middle Managers described by Deem,Hillyard, and Reed67 and the Head Teachers described by Gewirtz, Ball, andBowe.68 The Head Teachers were able both to retain their traditional edu-cational values and to use language appropriate to those values, and to gainaccess to, and operate within, the emerging managerialist culture of market, cor-porate image and competition by using appropriate language, however grud-gingly this might be in some cases. Neither HoD, for example, expressed anydifficulties with senior staff briefings, finding them useful sources ofinformation.

The findings of the current study concur with Kolsaker, who suggests thatuniversities have adopted and integrated the neoliberal agenda and the languageassociated with it, resulting in managers that are comfortable with its use andaccepting of the regimes.69 The HoDs did not comment specifically on thedrives to increase knowledge exchange, to work with industry or to considerthe employability of their students that are currently shaping universities’policies. They do, however, seem to understand the territory well. They see itas their job to try to assuage the university and the wider political need tosatisfy these agendas, but believe that this is best done by keeping to the original

66M. Henkel, ‘Demise of the Dominant Culture’, 31.67R. Deem, S. Hillyard, and M. Reed, Knowledge, Higher Education, and the NewManagerialism: The Changing Management of UK Universities (Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press, 2008).68S. Gewirtz, S.J. Ball, and R. Bowe, Markets, Choice and Equity in Education (Buck-ingham: Open University Press, 1995).69A. Kolsaker, ‘Academic Professionalism in the Managerialist Era: A Study of EnglishUniversities’, Studies in Higher Education 33, no. 5 (2008): 513–25.

138 A. Qualter and I. Willis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

00:

59 1

9 Ju

ne 2

015

purpose of the university, that is research and teaching – indeed they do notquestion this purpose for a minute. They seem, therefore, to be in the businessof ‘accommodating change within existing frames of reference’, rather thanaccommodating to it. How far they are allowing change to change them isless clear.

In meetings with other HoDs for example, they discuss ways in which theywill address the need to demonstrate ‘impact’ in the next round of researchassessment, rather than discussions that might challenge the notion thatimpact can or should be measured. By not challenging or seeking to debatechanges precipitated from the ‘outside’ they may, by small degrees, be allowingtheir departments to be changed. It may not be, as Gumport implies, that we areat some sort of tipping point for universities, but rather a gentle slide to a pos-ition where the purpose of universities has changed.70 Or perhaps the change istowards a new kind of organic community as described by Barnett.71 However,it is surely important that these questions are fully debated as a community.

Supported by, and in tune with, the wider university agenda, HoDs’ ofstrong departments believe in the importance of protecting staff, ensuring thatthey have the space in which to pursue their own research and to develop asacademics. They clearly see themselves as accommodating change. How farthe academics in these departments feel able to pursue their own projectswould provide useful insights into the extent to which the HoDs’ perceptionsmatch those of their academic colleagues. How far the heads of ‘less thanstrong’ departments are able to protect their colleagues and so ensure thatthey too have the ‘spaces’ in which to exercise their academic freedom anddevelop their professional identities needs additional and sensitive study.

Notes on contributorsAnne Qualter is Head of Educational Development with many years’ experience ofteaching and research in universities. Her research interests are in science educationand more recently in leadership and management in schools and Higher Education.

Ian Willis is Director of Studies for the University of Liverpool’s Post GraduateCertificate in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education and the lead on an inter-national collaboration to enhance medical education in the Punjab, Pakistan. Hisresearch interests are in internationalisation and educational development.

70Gumport, ‘Academic Restructuring’, 67–91.71R. Barnett, ‘Purposes of Higher Education’, 61–73.

Journal of Educational Administration and History 139

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

00:

59 1

9 Ju

ne 2

015