22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Heads of the Department Resilience Face to Face Multiple Crisis in Higher Education: Comparison of the Czechia and Israel
Emanuel Tamir1, Katerina Machovcova2
1TEL HAI ACADEMIC COLLEGE, Israel; 2Institute of Psychology Czech Academy of Sciences
Presenting Author: Tamir, Emanuel;
Machovcova, Katerina
The study explores how program and department leaders in academic institutions in Israel and the Czech Republic manage during a crisis, reflecting their perspectives on higher education policy-governance. It details the various approaches these middle managers use and their resilience.
Resilience
Resilience represents the ability to adapt and thrive in the face of adversity, challenges, and change. It includes the capacity of individuals and organizations to withstand and recover from traumatic events, such as disasters, as noted by Bonanno et al. (2010). This resilience extends to professional domains, as Grabarski (2023) illustrated, through adaptability and career resilience observations during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In organizational contexts, Carmeli (2013) and Fisher et al. (2019) discuss the cultivation of resilience through leadership and organizational culture, underscoring its importance across various life and professional domains. The resilience explored in the business sector, especially during times of organizational change, is highlighted by Foerster & Duchek (2018). An industry-specific perspective is examined in the airline industry's development of resilience following the 9/11 attacks (Gittell et al. 2006), while Williams & Gruber (2017) offer a comprehensive overview of organizational resilience in crises, showcasing various strategies and approaches employed to withstand and recover from crises. The concept of leadership resilience, as explored by Forster-Duchek (2017), highlights the role of personal qualities and strategies in effectively navigating leadership challenges.
The current study focuses on the resilience of middle management levels in both countries and traces their characteristics during periods of crisis.
Departments and program heads in the academy
Traditionally, universities have been praised more for their academic prowess than their management abilities, a trend influenced by their historical societal role. In recent decades, universities have experienced profound transformations, facing a more complex external environment and evolving stakeholder demands. They've also grown larger and more complex, driven by increased student enrollment and specialized research. These shifts have led to a new paradigm in management and leadership, aligning more with a managed professional public organization model (Boer, Goedegebuure & Meek, 2010).
In this context, program and department heads occupy some of the most critical and challenging positions in higher education (Tietjen-Smith, Hersman & Block, 2020; Maddock, 2023). Heads are responsible for the daily operations of their units, including setting strategic goals and ensuring efficient functioning. They handle budgeting, resource allocation, and programmatic decisions (Machovcova et al., 2023). They build social networks and manage relationships and resources, helping their teams compete in the academic world, characterized as a quasi-market environment. Their goal is to attract students and secure research funding (Bobe & Kober, 2015; Deem, 1998).
The research questions: What are the coping characteristics of the academy's heads of the programs and departments with the challenges that include financial strains, new systems of assessment as well as COVID-19 epidemic, in the comparison between Israel and the Czech Republic? What distinguishes the resilience of the heads, and what are the causes of this?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis qualitative research is interpretive and based on semi-structured interviews. The participants are 27 heads of programs and departments in the academy in Israel and 26 from the Czech Republic were interviewed, which represent 23 academic institutions in both countries. The study was conducted between 2015-2022.
The interview protocol included more than 25 questions about components of their role and challenges they faced during their service in the managerial role. Sample questions from the interviews: What was your more challenging experience in the role of department head? What characterized research in your program/department's research centers/labs during the pandemic? What did you research during that period? In your opinion, how was your research influenced by this period? How were the heads` operations different from the way it functioned before the crisis? What difficulties did you encounter when heading the program during the pandemic? (with students, lecturers, etc.).
Context
The Czech Republic's higher education has evolved from distinguishing research-focused institutions from teaching-focused ones to now predominantly embracing research-oriented academia. However, a dual system persists with the Academy of Sciences focusing solely on research, while universities and tertiary education providers integrate both research and teaching. Our study will concentrate on these dual-role institutions.
Similarly, Israeli academia has shifted towards research-oriented institutions, influenced by two converging trends. Initially, colleges specializing in teacher training began emphasizing research, encouraging faculty to engage in research activities, although this shift is ongoing and lacks strict penalties for non-research-active lecturers. Concurrently, in the early 2000s, academic institutions were established in less developed areas to bridge social disparities. These institutions, unlike research-centric universities, some globally recognized, initially placed less emphasis on research. However, over time, a growing number of lecturers have started to participate in research, driven by career advancement criteria set by the National Council for Higher Education.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe study brought up five categories that can shed light on the processes that led to resilience (although the institutions in the countries showed a different configuration of resilience):
1. Heads workload: Work overload stems from Student matters and their distress; Lecturers needs; Administrative tasks; Family or personal hardships.
2. Orientation of program heads for students: Dedicating the heads' time and focusing on student affairs.
3. Orientation of program heads for research: Dedicating the heads' time and focusing on their personal research aspects.
4. Higher education policy: Heads referring to the guidelines of the state and the institution and creating activities that go beyond them.
5. Organizational culture: Key characteristics of institutional culture that transcend differences among institutions (e.g., cooperative/centralized approaches, reward/sanction systems, and perceptions of organizational effectiveness). Each country and its development of higher education culture showcase distinct and unique strengths and resilience factors in action.
The response of academic heads to the crisis varied significantly between the Czech Republic and Israel. In the Czech Republic, the emphasis was on research. Heads generally focused on advancing their teams' research efforts, aligning with national policies that link an academician's survival to research output. This approach aimed to gain a competitive edge over their peers. In contrast, in Israel, the focus was on student retention. Israeli institutional policies usually reward leaders who excel in research with job security and tenure. However, during the crisis, there was concern that student departures could jeopardize future employment prospects for these leaders.
The study also reveals some personal characteristics of the heads, such as their desire to act as role models for their teams and their vision of higher education in the next decade. This optimism was translated into management practices in the units they were responsible for.
ReferencesBobe, B. J., & Kober, R. (2015). Measuring organizational capabilities in the higher education sector. Education & Training, 57(3), 322-342.
Bonanno, G. A., Brewin, C. R., Kaniasty, K., & Greca, A. M. L. (2010). Weighing the costs of disaster: Consequences, risks, and resilience in individuals, families, and communities. Psychological science in the public interest, 11(1), 1-49.
De Boer, H., Goedegebuure, L., & Meek, V. L. (2010). The changing nature of academic middle management: A framework for analysis. The changing dynamics of higher education middle management, 229-241.
Carmeli, A., Friedman, Y., & Tishler, A. (2013). Cultivating a resilient top management team: The importance of relational connections and strategic decision comprehensiveness. Safety Science, 51(1), 148-159.
Fisher, D. M., Ragsdale, J. M., & Fisher, E. C. (2019). The importance of definitional and temporal issues in the study of resilience. Applied psychology, 68(4), 583-620.
Förster, C., & Duchek, S. (2017). What makes leaders resilient? An exploratory interview study. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(4), 281-306.
Foerster, C., & Duchek, S. (2018, July). Leaders’ resilience- A systematic literature review and future research agenda. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2018, No. 1, p. 13879). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.
Gittell, J. H., Cameron, K., Lim, S., & Rivas, R. (2006). Relationships, layoffs, and organizational resilience. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(3), 300–329.
Grabarski, M. K., & Mouratidou, M. (2023). Rise up: Career empowerment, adaptability and resilience during a pandemic. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration.
Machovcova, K., Kovats, G., Mudrak, J., Cidlinska, K., & Zabrodska, K. (2023). (Dis)continuities in academic middle management career trajectories: a longitudinal qualitative study. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 1-18.
Maddock, L. C. (2023). Academic middle leaders, middle leading and middle leadership of university learning and teaching: A systematic review of the higher education literature. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 1-36.
Tietjen-Smith, T., Hersman, B., & Block, B. A. (2020). Planning for succession: Preparing faculty for the kinesiology department head role. Quest, 72(4), 383-394.
Williams, T. A., Gruber, D. A., Sutcliffe, K. M., Shepherd, D. A., & Zhao, E. Y. (2017). Organizational response to adversity: Fusing crisis management and resilience research streams. Academy of Management Annals, 11(2), 733-769.
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Instructors’ International Activity and Its Obstacles in Higher Education
Ilona Dora Dabney-Fekete1, Agnes Reka Dusa2, Katalin Pallay3
1University of Debrecen; 2Center for Educational Research and Development Hungary; 3Ferenc Rákóczi II Transcarpathian Hungarian College of Higher Education
Presenting Author: Dabney-Fekete, Ilona Dora
In recent days, the examination of the international mobility and activity of teachers has been at the center of researcher attention. Unsurprisingly, the group that by population was significantly larger, student academic movement, received greater scrutiny. For instance, according to the European Commission’s 2007 survey, the examination of the countries of the European Union showed that for every international teacher trip taken on average 16 student trips took place in the given year (European Commission, 2007). Teichler’s (2011) view is that the reason why researching higher education employees may have been pushed to the background was due to the phenomenon that, as long as the internationalization strategies of universities focus more on organizing and supporting student mobility, the academic travels of teachers “evidently” are viewed by institutions as the responsibility of the individual.
Instructor mobility differs in many ways from that of student, since it is much more complex (Teichler). Thus defining it is not easy at all, it can be approached from several angles depending on its length, purpose, the motivation of the individual, and the relationship with the institution. Its effect and influence on the individual though, and through them on the colleagues, students, their own institution and their teaching, as well as on the economy are undeniable. A research carried out in 2014, based on the almost 5000 instructors’ responses who took part in the Erasmus mobility program, focused on how and to what extent the individual’s participation in mobility programs has an effect on their own, as well as their narrower and wider environment. As a result it was understood that the vast majority of respondents thinks very positively about the experience that international mobility provides them (Brandenburg, 2014).
In our study, we focused on the international mobility activities of instructors in higher education. We examined what effects of restrictive factors can be seen, which make participation in teaching and researching programs abroad more difficult. For this, we used the Central and Eastern European Teachers in Higher Education (CEETHE 2023, N=821) database. First, we were curious as to the differences between fields of study, second, the effects of various demographic factors (e.g. age, family status, children, financial standing, country of origin). Other than these, we attempted to detect the effects of restrictive factors previously discovered in early studies, thus, foreign language knowledge, embeddedness in workplace community, institutional support, the effect of support from direct colleagues, workplace burnout, or the balance between private life and work.
The goal of the study is, with the secondary analysis of the Central and Eastern European Teachers in Higher Education database, to examine the factors that obstruct university teachers from their education- and research-oriented mobility abroad. This question is actual because, though internationalization is the flagship area of higher education and many studies prove that instructor mobility has a positive effect on student mobility, still, the scrutiny of factors that promote or prevent instructor mobility falls far behind the examination of student mobility, or the analysis of the condition of foreign students studying at institutions from different aspects (like studying difficulties, cultural adaptations, language learning, etc.). Our study, therefore, focuses on the teachers.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedOur surveys were dispatched in online form, with the permission of the institution head, in the spring of 2023, on 2 or 3 occasions to each teacher from the examined institutions, thus ensuring the probability sampling. In Hungary, the institutions of two disadvantaged regions, the Northern Great Plains Region and the South Transdanube Region, were examined. In the case of cross-border institutions, our aim was first the minority Hungarian institutions; here too we sent a survey to every teacher in the language of the majority.
In our study, we used the full database of the Central and Eastern European Teachers in Higher Education (CEETHE 2023), in this way - though due to variation in the items it was limited - we could compare the mobility of teachers working in the universities of five countries. In our sample, therefore, Hungarian, Romanian, Serbian, Slovakian, and Ukrainian university and college teachers were used, specifically 853. After data cleaning that number dropped to 821.
Our fundamental question was, what sort of differences appear between a participant in teacher or researcher mobility, and one who does not participate. We viewed those who answered in the affirmative to the question: “did you participate or not in the teacher/researcher mobility program?” as mobile teachers, and those who answered in the negative as immobile teachers. It is important to draw attention to the fact that the question did not have a time constraint, in other words,
As explanatory variables we examined the demographic background variables (age, gender, country of origin), as well as the disciplines, the ranks and academic degrees. Furthermore, within the boundaries that were drawn by the database, we studied whether the factors that are usually mentioned by special literature as inhibiting obstacles for academic mobility, show significant connection to instructors’ (im)mobility. Examining these factors we created indices. During our research we used the chi-square test, and variance analysis.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsLike student mobility, instructor mobility showed significant differences regarding field of study: fewer medical and healthcare instructors are involved in endeavors abroad. This result was unexpected and surprising, since most international students in Hungarian higher education choose these faculties and majors. Not to mention that these are “hard” fields, easily translated into English, with Latin (the basis of medical terminology) being the international mediator language. Still, instructors struggle to take advantage of other mobility opportunities (guest teaching and guest research) while balancing the pressure of attending conferences, publishing, and fulfilling their physician duties.
About demographics, age, gender and country of origin heavily affected whether or not the instructor had been internationally active. Leaders in this were older Slovakian and Romanian men.
To measure foreign language knowledge we used a special index containing international publishing and conference attendance. Here we confirmed, mobile instructors had higher values than immobile. Perhaps, those mobile were braver to publish internationally or collaborate in research projects with colleague acquaintances met during previous mobility engagements.
Being embedded into the institutional climate and the relationship with the colleagues is of major help in getting hold of information. Thus, when the connection between mobility, and the degree and level of interaction with the colleagues was discovered, it was no surprise. That aforementioned high index value among mobile instructors shows greater communication with colleagues, resulting in relevant information reaching them sooner (about international academic opportunities as well). This is somewhat contradicted by greater satisfaction among immobile instructors with the extent of support coming from co-workers and lesser among mobile ones. We were not able to detect the supporting influence of the higher educational institution, or the effect of the destroyed balance of work and private life, and that of workplace burnout.
ReferencesAltbach, P. (Ed.). (2002). The Decline of the Guru: The Academic Profession in developing and Middle-Income Countries. Chestnut Hill, Boston College.
Borm, J. (2020). Making Mobility the Norm-NORM. IO1 desk research report. https://projects.uni-foundation.eu/norm/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/02/IO1_NORM_Desk-Reserach-Report.pdf (downloaded: 2024. 01. 04.)
Brandenburg, U. (2014) (teamleader). The Erasmus Impact Study. Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union.
Dabney-Fekete, I. D. (2020). Nemzetköziesedő tudomány. A felsőoktatásban dolgozó oktatók nemzetközi aktivitása. [Internationalizing education. The international activity of instructors working in higher education.] Debreceni Egyetem, Felsőoktatási Kutató és Fejlesztő Központ.
Dusa, Á. R. (2020). Hallgatók nemzetközi mobilitása a XXI. század elején. [International mobility of students at the beginning of the 21st century.] Debreceni Egyetemi Kiadó.
OECD. (2023). Education at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en
European Commission. (2007). Key Data on Higher Education in Europe. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
European Commission. (2015). The European Higher Education Area in 2015: Bologna Process Implementation Report. Publications Office of the European Union.
Greek, M. – Jonsmoen, K. M. (2021). Transnational academic mobility in universities: the impact on a departmental and an interpersonal level. Higher Education (2021) 81:591–606
Horváth, L., Hangyál, Zs., Kasza, G., & Czirfusz, D. (2020). Teach with Erasmus+ Research Report. ELTE Eötvös Loránd University Department of Erasmus+ and International Programmes.
Höhle, E. & Teichler U. (2013). The Teaching Function of the Academic Profession. In Teichler, U. – Höhle, E. (Eds.): The Work Situation of the Academic Profession in Europe: Findings of a Survey in Twelve Countries. (pp. 79-108). Springer.
Knight, J. – de Wit, H. (2018). Internationalization of Higher Education: Past and Future. International Higher Education, No. 95, Fall: Internationalization and Transnational Developments.
Kyvik, S., & Larsen, I.M. (1997). The Exchange of Knowledge: A Small Country in the International Research Community. Science Communication, 18(3), 238–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547097018003004
Malota E. & Gyulavári T. (2022). Nemzetközi mobilitás a felsőoktatásban: Az oktatói/kutatói mobilitás elősegítő és akadályozó tényezői, motivációi és hatásai: Kutatási gyorsjelentés. [International mobility in higher education: promoting factors and obstacles, motivations and effects of instructor/researcher mobility.] Tempus Közalapítvány.
Smeby, JC. & Trondal, J. (2005). Globalisation or europeanisation? International contact among university staff. Higher Education 49, 449–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-2826-5
Teichler, U. (2011). Academic staff mobility. In U.Teichler, I. Ferencz & B. Wächter (Eds.). Mapping Mobility in European Higher Education. Volume I: Overview and Trends (pp. 111 – 146). European Commission.
|
