Your journal needs … ?

Our organisation, the Association of University Administrators (AUA), promotes professionalism in a wide variety of ways. Collectively and individually, we strive to develop and apply our knowledge, skills and practices. As a collegial association, we commit to share our understandings of successful techniques and interventions. Currently, we do not have enough contributions by AUA members. Your Perspectives team would very much wish to receive more problem-solving pieces by you.

Communication between colleagues is central to effective professional practice. Supporting and encouraging colleagues to develop their professional engagement, we recognise that challenging situations are always potential learning opportunities. Often the learning can be transferable through the sector but, clearly, there must be respect for the specific organisational context. Provided there is sufficient common ground, we can learn lessons from initiatives taken in other places.

Our ‘CPD Framework’ calls on members to devote time to their own development and consciously apply learning to enhance everyday professional practice.¹ To assist this, the AUA publishes a variety of Good Practice guides, and we offer development opportunities and promote certificated learning at the graduate level. This journal and Newslink are available to members as part of the subscription that, in effect, is an investment in your own professional development.

As individual members of AUA, we commit to seek, accept and learn from feedback, and the same applies organisationally to AUA. Periodically, Perspectives asks its readers to comment on the content, approach and purpose of the journal. About four years ago, we did this, and we have recently repeated the exercise, using the same format and questions so that we could make comparisons (Law 2014a, 2014b). This editorial gives feedback to our readership on the new results.

It turns out that those who responded to our survey in the first half of 2017 gave very similar views to colleagues who participated in 2013. To be honest, I wondered at first whether the same voices were being heard in both surveys but then noted that only about half of the 2017 responses are from those who have been members for more than five years.

In both surveys, around 8% of the AUA's membership responded. Whilst this may not be a fully reliable barometer of members’ views, we have had some very valuable comments on what works for you and what does not.

Overall, there is agreement that:

(a) Perspectives adds value and prestige to the AUA – below 5% of respondents disagree;

(b) the articles we publish are found to be interesting and useful, particularly by those who are taking (or have graduated from) the Post-graduate Certificate programme (one in four of respondents);

(c) the paper version of Perspectives appears to be read much more widely than the online version;

(d) about half of those who responded recommend articles to colleagues as guidance towards the development of policy and practice;

(e) more than half of our respondents have considered writing for the journal.

We certainly do not wish to be complacent and we cannot claim that the views expressed in the survey represent the whole membership. However, it is worth noting that only about a quarter of the responses were from those in more senior positions in their organisations, using as a guide our salary-related subscription bands. So, it seems, this is not a collection of views from managers who are providing a ‘party line’.

We know from this survey, and from the previous one, that the key dilemma that we face is how to ensure alignment of authors and readers. It is not that we want this alignment to be based on any kind of orthodoxy. There should be diversity: of specialisation, age, seniority, gender, ethnicity and of course, and above all, of viewpoints. What I mean by calling for ‘alignment’ is that we don't want our authors to be ‘theoreticians’ and our readers to be ‘practitioners’. For the journal to continue to be useful to AUA members, we would like more members becoming both readers and authors. And, it is clear from the responses we received that you agree.

Many readers certainly see themselves as having ‘something to say’ but not enough time to write for publication. In some cases, knowing how to start is the challenge although the pressure of work is always a problem. If you feel that it would help to have advice and support, then please contact us. One of our editors will respond and discuss how you can make progress with your idea. If you have reached a preliminary view about your subject, send us a brief note about it and we will make suggestions. We really want to hear more about the initiatives that you have been taking in your work places.

We asked: ‘what types of articles would you wish to see more of’. We had some interesting responses. One, expressing a common theme, was: ‘practical reports that outline how something innovative or different was implemented at work’. We fully agree and, for this kind of piece, we would be looking for brevity and focus on outcomes. Our new InTouch section is designed for exactly this purpose.

Your editors certainly agree with the colleague who said that there should be

a mix of people writing for Perspectives although currently, it seems to be predominantly those who have already had successful careers … but it would be refreshing to see articles from younger and less-experienced administrators … using an ideas-led, suggestion-based type of writing which might encourage others to write in response.

We need to hear more from colleagues who are helping shape the new landscape of higher education.

Another theme that came through in the free text answers was that the style used by some authors verges on ‘turgid’. One colleague perceived an ‘unnecessarily complicated approach to the expression of points or ideas’ which was attributed to ‘status anxiety for us as HE administrators’. Your editors would certainly agree that authors should not

fall into a kind of self-conscious ‘I can make ideas seem complicated’ [approach … and need to] concentrate on producing articles that use straightforward, clear expression of how practitioners have addressed problems and issues, and how they have brought together theory and practice.

We had some great advice in the responses to our survey and we will certainly try to follow it. But, I feel I should say that if you want to change the tone of your journal the best way that you can do this is by sending in your writing so that we can publish it. This issue of Perspectives has four articles and two of these are by members. If we could regularly achieve a 50/50 balance, like this, I believe that we would be able to be confident that we really are an authentic voice for the Association.

The first article here is by Margaret Wilson and Philip Corr. They bring different perspectives to a topic of interest to us all: the creation of ‘academic value’. To conceptualise complex relationships, the authors present a diagrammatic ‘academic wheel’ to illustrate their structural nature. They ask whether it is possible to reconcile, what is sometimes perceived as, managerial Taylorism with the academic freedom of (Laurie) Taylorism! Colleagues, when you read this, please think about how it applies to your situation. If you feel moved to do so, why not send in an alternative view that we could publish.

Philip Carey, the author of our second piece, is an Associate Dean at Liverpool John Moores University. He has been awarded a National Teaching Fellowship in recognition of his commitment to enhancing the student experience. His subject here is ‘The impact of institutional culture, policy and process on student engagement in university decision-making’. He proposes ‘a model for student engagement that recognises the importance of institutional action in facilitating different types of participation’. He calls on universities to ‘acknowledge their responsibility as a facilitator of engagement and review how their structure, actions, processes and procedures encourage or constrain engagement’. Again, this would be a great topic for debate. Many of our members are in positions where they make a real impact on student engagement.

Michelle Gander gives us ‘A descriptive study of professional staff, and their careers, in Australian and UK universities’. This piece really should be read widely and discussed by our membership because it is focussed on ‘what gets you up in the morning’ (my words not Michelle's). If she is right you are now, overall, more motivated by attitudes such as ‘value match, … challenging work, and interesting work (that is intrinsic motivators) compared with … motivators such as promotion, pay and job security (extrinsic motivators)’. Although it must be added that the article finds that extrinsic motivators also have importance: the data showed that ‘in the UK most staff were looking for a promotion within the next three years … the lack of promotion opportunities is an area of dissatisfaction’.

Finally, in this issue, we publish a piece by three authors at Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Steven Kleinman, Mary Beth Leidman and Andrew Longcore write on ‘The changing landscape of grading systems in US higher education’. Our members will probably recognise much in common with these US authors, for example:

in many cases students are much more concerned with the grade they receive than the knowledge they obtain. This is understandable considering the importance that future employers and potential graduate programmes place on these metrics. However, as educators we must ask ourselves whether or not this is what is best for students in the long run.

These authors conclude:

International audiences might not share the same grading schema as those in the USA, however, the challenges remain the same. There is no right way to systematically evaluate. Regardless of how one looks at evaluating and reflecting student work, in the final analysis, it remains a subjective estimation of the level of expertise each student displays of a given curriculum. … Given the shrinking of the world and the cross-cultural, inter-cultural relationships which exist in the academic communities, the need to understand grading schemes becomes central to ascribing and comprehending levels of expertise. Otherwise, the scales of perceptions are uneven and not applicable across borders.  … The challenges in grading schema are not isolated to the USA.

Your editors very much hope that readers of this issue will find the articles here interesting and useful. We are committed to professional dialogue. Debate is essential to the development of good practice. And, we see a lot to debate in the four pieces published here.

One of the respondents to our survey commented in the free text area that one thing that is missing from the journal is:

a ‘Letters’ page where readers comment and feedback on printed articles. This would be useful in developing the themes raised in existing articles and might also prove to be a ‘way in’ for more readers to feel able to contribute their own articles.

We agree, although we probably will not use a ‘Letters to the Editors’ heading. But, the main things are: we do wish to stimulate debate and there is no need for all the pieces that we publish to cover roughly the same number of pages. Some pieces do not need footnotes and references.

During 2018, we are planning to introduce a section that we expect to call InTouch. We are not expecting the length or the ‘academic apparatus’ that is characteristic of most pieces we publish. We plan to provide a chance for readers to communicate about projects that they have been developing, as the leader or as part of a team. Such a section could also be a bit like a ‘letters page’. Anyone who has been working on any of the topics covered in our journal could write about the subject, testing the conclusions reached by another author. The only way to be a writer is to write!

Finally, it is my pleasure to welcome the appointment of a second Principal Editor. Michelle Gander, a longstanding member of AUA and already part of the Perspectives team, has accepted the invitation of the Editorial Board to work in parallel with me. I am sure that her appointment will be welcomed by the readership. We hope that you will want to give her your ideas for work that can be included in a themed issue she is putting together on the subject of ‘Managing Human Resources’. Her contact details are in the article published in this issue. Please send her an ‘expression of interest’ as soon as possible. She would like to receive these by the end of 2017, or in January 2018 at the latest.

Notes on contributor

David Law, formerly PVC (pro vice-chancellor) (Students and External), retired from full-time employment at Edge Hill University in 2012 and then was Director of the Edge Hill Confucius Institute for two years. He has been Principal Editor of Perspectives since 2012. Currently, Dr Law is an Honorary Professor at Keele University and the Managing Director of a Consultancy: IETC Ltd.

Notes

1. The AUA CPD Framework is available on our website. Designed to support career development needs, it works on an organisational and individual level, for staff at all career stages and can be applied across all roles in our sector. The project to publish the Framework began in 2009. The AUA refreshed and relaunched the document in 2016, connecting it to the AUA Mark of Excellence. Please contact the AUA in Manchester for further details.