This paper is based on a book chapter which forms part of the forthcoming publication entitled Leadership in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Narratives of Academics’ Personal Journeys (full reference below). Taken as a whole, the book examines how staff navigate to leadership positions in learning and teaching whilst also managing various ‘contested identities’ and ‘marginalised spaces’, such as physical and social marginalised spaces, meso-level leadership positions, and gender. The book comprises personal narratives of emerging and established leaders in learning and teaching. My paper draws on my chapter contribution for the book, and examines these themes in the context of how staff can ‘sense-make’ programme leadership roles at higher education institutions. 

In the paper, therefore, I will provide a reflective analysis of my work as a Programme Leader (PL), at three different universities, examining the challenges and ‘role uncertainties’ that often characterise this type of professional position.Normally, a Programme Leader (sometimes referred to by other terms such as ‘programme director’ or ‘course leader’) is a member of staff responsible for the day-to-day management of a given course or programme of study (Cahill et al, 2015). However, in spite of my breadth of experience in higher education, no other leadership position I have occupied has been so complex as the role of PL. I argue that, for a series of reasons, programme leadership may represent a ‘difficult’ example of higher education leadership, but that steps can be taken to clarify some of the ambiguousness (or ‘fuzziness’) by which it is characterized and experienced by so many. Indeed, published literature on programme leadership is consistent in illustrating this can often be a role fraught with ambiguity and complexity (Mitchell, 2015; Moore, 2018; Murphy and Curtis, 2013). Current and former PLs report mixed experiences, sometimes having been unclear about their roles and responsibilities. 

Drawing primarily on my leadership experience, but also on conversations with colleagues and on relevant literature, I argue that the PL role is often problematic and that more could be done to improve the experiences of those undertaking it. My paper provides an opportunity to reflect on my experiences, offer some possible causes for the often challenging nature of the role, and make some recommendations. 

Key questions that are addressed are:

1. How and why is the PL role so often problematic, ambiguous and ‘fuzzy’, and what evidence is there to demonstrate this?
2. What actions can individuals and higher education institutions take to negate these difficulties, and clarify and improve the role of the PL, for the benefit of students, staff and PLs themselves, as well as learning and teaching processes?

A note on terminology: Different terms are used to denote the PL role, such as Programme Leader, Programme Director and Course Leader. I use the term ‘Programme Leader’ (PL) for the sake of consistency. The word ‘fuzzy’ (in this context meaning ambiguous or unclear) was first used to describe programme leadership in the work of Mitchell (2015).

The paper is based on a reflective and theoretically informed (Moon, 2005; Senior, 2018) analysis of my work as a PL, at three different universities. Whilst primarily reflective and experiential in focus, it is also informed by the use of other secondary sources including conversations with colleagues, and notes and records used in the role, as well as extensive literature (examples of this literature are cited in the reference section below). In total, I was a PL for nine years three institutions, for which I have used pseudonyms in the analysis, referring to them as University A, University B and University C. University A is a well-established, medium-sized, campus-based institution; University B is a city-centre institution with close links to business; University C is a large, research-focused and prestigious organization. Each of these universities is UK-based but the themes, issues and recommendations which are discussed will be of relevance to an international audience, bearing in mind that PLs are international in composition and the role itself is also international. As explained above, to inform the work, I drew on a conceptual framework by Senior (2018). Senior explains that there is little bespoke theory focused on programme leadership: ‘The small pool of literature that does exist acts as a critical launch pad, and has the potential to further raise the profile of programme leadership. The findings of these exploratory studies… demonstrate that a firm theoretical basis for programme leadership is yet to be established’ (p. 11). Senior has tproposed a model comprising nine categories as core components for the role, which include: programme delivery and quality; student liaison, support and guidance; staff liaison; committees; external stakeholder engagement; managing internal and external student feedback processes; programme design, approval and modification - and several others. Whilst Senior’s framework has its origins in the British ‘system’, its themes, as well as challenges experienced by staff in PL roles, are also familiar and important in European and international higher education contexts.

Whilst much of my work in PL settings has been enriching, I have also encountered challenges and ambiguities, suggesting a role of ‘blurred boundaries’, attracting different perceptions and assumptions. By means of sustained reflection and conversations with others in comparable roles, my outcomes offer a series of vignette examples to illustrate the nuances, complexities and ‘fuzziness’ of the role – and the potentially negative implications of these. Further, though I worked as PL at three distinct universities, some of the role complications were similar and indeed broadly cohere with previous accounts of programme leadership (Murphy and Curtis, 2013) I identify examples of this variation, the impact it had, and what ‘lessons may be learned’. Drawing on Senior’s (2018) framework, I will offer recommendations which include: the PL role needs a written role description which fits the institutional and programmatic context; in the rapidly changing HE environment, PL duties need to be reviewed periodically; and, a PL must be able to have clear ownership of the programme that run – and a ‘vision’ for its development. In addition, I will present recommendations for senior colleagues who design PL roles within institutions, such as the need to introduce PL inductions, training and mentoring systems, and promote the use of networks or communities for PLs (Moore, 2018). In sum, drawing on excerpts from my professional experience and other sources, I opine that although the PL role can be rewarding, it is also characterized by ‘fuzziness’ – ambiguity and uncertainty – in multiple aspects. Work needs to be undertaken to better define and support the role, because PL staff represent a vital interface between university management, students, and teaching and learning. PLs need clear aims and boundaries or else they risk not developing their own leadership skills, but merely enacting the decisions of others.

Cahill, J., Bowyer, J., Rendell, C., Hammond, A., and Korek, S. (2015), ‘An exploration of how programme leaders in higher education can be prepared and supported to discharge their responsibilities effectively’, Educational Research 57 (3): 272–86. Ellis, S., and Nimmo, A. (2018), ‘Opening eyes and changing mind-sets: Professional development for programme leaders’, in J. Lawrence and S. Ellis (eds), Supporting Programme Leaders and Programme Leadership (SEDA Special No. 39), 35–9. Fotheringham, H. (2019), ‘Engaging staff and students with data’, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. https://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/docs/ethe mes/evidence-for-enhancement/engaging-staff-and-students-with-data.pdf ?sfv rsn=e392c781_8 Hosein, A., Kinchin, I. and Rao, N. (2023, forthcoming) Leadership in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Narratives of Academics’ Personal Journeys, London, Bloomsbury. Johnston, V., and Westwood, J. (2009), ‘Academic leadership: Developing a framework for the professional development of programme leaders’, York: Advance HE. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/academic-leadership-develop ing-framework-professional-development-programme-leaders Lawrence, J., and Ellis, S. (2018), Supporting Programme Leaders and Programme Leadership (SEDA Special No. 39), London: Staff and Educational Development Association. Milburn, P. (2010), ‘The role of programme directors as academic leaders’, Active Learning in Higher Education 11 (2): 87–95. Mitchell, R. (2015), ‘ “If there is a job description I don’t think I’ve read one”: A case study of programme leadership in a UK pre-1992 university’, Journal of Further and Higher Education 39 (5): 713–32. Moon, J. (2005), ‘Reflection in Learning and Professional Development: Theory and Practice’, London, Routledge. Moore, S. (2018), ‘Beyond isolation: Exploring the relationality and collegiality of the programme’, in J. Lawrence and S. Ellis (eds), Supporting Programme Leaders and Programme Leadership (SEDA Special No. 39), 29–33, London: Staff and Educational Development Association. Murphy, M., and Curtis, W. (2013), ‘The micro-politics of microleadership: Exploring the role of programme leader in English universities’, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 35 (1): 34–44. Robinson-Self, P. (2020), ‘The practice and politics of programme leadership: Between strategy and teaching’, in J. Potter and C. Devecchi (eds), Delivering Educational Change in Higher Education: A Transformative Approach for Leaders and Practitioners, 116–25, Abingdon: Routledge. Senior, R. (2018), ‘The shape of programme leadership in the contemporary university’, in J. Lawrence and S. Ellis (eds), Supporting Programme Leaders and Programme Leadership (SEDA Special No. 39), 11–14, London: Staff and Educational Development Association. Vilkinas, T., and Ladyshewsky, R. (2012), ‘Leadership behaviour and effectiveness of academic program directors in Australian universities’, Educational Management Administration and Leadership 40 (1): 109–26.