Academic Programs and Department Heads

The position of a Program or Department Head is among the most crucial and challenging roles in the higher education systems (Buller, 2012; Tietjen-Smith et al., 2020). However, it is also often characterized by its lack of clear definition and ambiguity (Aitken & O’Carroll, 2020; Maddock, 2023). These heads act as key middle managers, essential for the smooth operation of academic institutions. Despite their importance, there has been relatively little research conducted on the wide range of their duties and their effectiveness (Gmelch et al., 2017; Reznik & Sazykina, 2017; Wald & Golding 2022).

Department heads guide their academic units, overseeing daily operations, setting strategic objectives, and ensuring efficiency. They manage budgets, allocate resources, and make key program decisions (Machovcova et al., 2023; Maddok, 2023).

Heads are pivotal in shaping and updating the curriculum, designing new courses, revising existing ones, and aligning them with institutional goals and diverse student needs (Bobe & Kober, 2015).

They are involved in recruiting, hiring, and evaluating faculty, promoting their professional growth, and participating in tenure and promotion decisions (Buller, 2012; Wald & Golding, 2020).

They collaborate with internal and external stakeholders to enhance interdisciplinary studies and research partnerships (Aitken & O’Carroll, 2020; Freeman et al., 2020).

Heads advise students on academic planning and course selection, address related concerns, and innovate to meet student needs. They are responsible for maintaining academic standards, and they ensure programs comply with accreditation and reflect current educational practices (Erkkilä & Piironen, 2020; Maddock, 2023).

They represent their departments, and they secure resources and funding within their limited authority (Kruse, 2022).

The Heads’ academic outputs

Heads of academic departments play a pivotal role in shaping the efficiency and effectiveness of educational institutions (Maddock, 2023; Lizier, 2023). Their expected outputs, influenced by their institutions` mission, encompass various aspects. In leadership and administration, they manage operations, strategic planning, and resource allocation, as Kekäle (1999) noted. They're instrumental in curriculum development, aligning it with institutional goals and student needs (Bobe & Kober, 2015).

Their management role extends to staff recruitment, hiring, and evaluation, ensuring academic quality and standards (Buller,2012; Wald & Goldring, 2020; Saunders & Sin, 2015). Heads also advise and support students, and engage in vital collaboration and networking, as described by Erkkilä & Piironen (2020). Despite limited institutional authority (Kruse, 2022), they handle conflict resolution (Lizier, 2023; Taggart, 2015) and balance administrative duties with research (Wald & Goldring, 2022; Machovcova et al., 2023).

Research success relies on institutional support and personal motivation, and a conducive research environment (Hoang & Dang, 2022). They navigate institutional policies and are influenced by institutional prestige (Way et al., 2016). Balancing research and administrative tasks (Reznik & Sazykina, 2017) is crucial, especially in challenging times.

In many academic settings, department heads often serve temporarily in managerial roles, usually returning to their primary roles as researchers and lecturers after a set period. Their main career focus is consistently publishing research while handling administrative duties, as research is a key part of their professional identity. These leaders are expected to keep producing and publishing research to progress in their academic careers. Their research output often measures their performance (Reznik & Sazykina, 2017). Even on regular days, middle-level academic leaders face the challenge of balancing their scholarly work with their leadership roles, often finding little time for research (Aitken & O’Carroll, 2020; Machovcova et al, 2023). Understanding how they manage their research activities, especially during prolonged crises, is vital and discussed in this research.

Research question: how do academic program and department leaders manage their research during an extended crisis?

The study, conducted from July 2021 to January 2022, consisted of two parts: Study-1, with 27 semi-structured interviews, and Study-2, involving a targeted quantitative survey with 113 participants, all of whom were academic Heads. For Study-1, the interviews were conducted via Zoom. Each session ranged from 45 minutes to 1.5 hours. The interview questions focused on the nature of research during the pandemic, topics explored, and personal research influences. Participants included 27 Heads from 21 Israeli colleges and universities, with a majority in social sciences (59%), followed by humanities (15%), natural sciences and medicine (15%), and exact sciences and engineering (11%). The gender distribution was 56% female and 44% male, ages 35 to 80 (Mean = 53.2, SD = 8.55). These interviews informed a 37-question survey for Study-2, aiming to understand how Heads managed the crisis and its impact on their research, examining links to rank and gender. The survey sampled 113 different Heads, 46% female and 54% male, ages 30 to 80 (Mean = 57.35, SD = 9.23). Their academic ranks varied: 5% lecturers, 45% senior lecturers, 24% associate professors, and 26% full professors. They oversaw faculties ranging from 5 to 200 members (Mean = 27.41, SD = 28.12), covering social sciences (51%), exact sciences and engineering (14%), humanities (13%), life sciences and medicine (9%), and other disciplines (13%). The interviews were analyzed using Marshall and Rossman's (2014) framework, involving data organization, categorization, theme identification, hypothesis exploration, and category comparisons. The survey, structured based on Greene, Caracelli, and Graham’s (1989) protocol, aimed to validate, enhance, and expand upon the qualitative findings. It sought to uncover contradictions and broaden the investigation scope. Quantitative analysis of the Heads' self-reports prompted questions about measuring publication volume pre- and post-crisis. However, this approach might need to pay more attention to quality variations and timing issues, as articles published during the study period could have been submitted earlier. Additionally, assessing publications years after the crisis could lead to loss of contextual accuracy and recall difficulties.

The study underscores the central challenge faced by academic leaders, particularly pronounced during extended crises: the delicate balance between their administrative roles and ongoing research responsibilities. This equilibrium is pivotal to their professional identity and is gauged by their research output. The research has revealed three primary themes. The first highlights obstacles that have curtailed the research output of both heads and doctoral students under their guidance. The second delves into factors hindering research productivity, including heavy student-related workloads, administrative duties, family responsibilities, and limited research facility access. The third theme contrasts this by spotlighting academic heads who, despite these challenges, have innovatively maintained or even increased their research output. Research is integral to the professional lives of academic heads who must manage institutional expectations for research production amidst limited resources, inadequate training, and leadership skills. The COVID-19 crisis exacerbated these challenges. Professors were more active in publishing during the crisis compared to junior academics due to established publishing skills, extensive networks, and job security through tenure, allowing them to prioritize research. Academic heads excelling in research productivity during the crisis did so by effective task allocation, smoothly transitioning between administrative and research roles, and benefiting from reduced travel. Their adaptability significantly boosted their output. The prolonged crisis left academic leaders to their own devices, although research remains an essential output for their professional progression, and their academic institutions require it for prestige and attracting students and skilled research staff. In conclusion, crises can jeopardize academic leaders' research efforts. Recognizing their pivotal role in research and providing support, particularly for non-professors, is crucial for sustaining an institution's research output and reputation. Proactive support and investment in fostering a resilient research environment yield long-term benefits for academic institutions.

Aitken, G., & O’Carroll, S. (2020). Academic identity and crossing boundaries: The role of the programme director in postgraduate taught programmes. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(7), 1410–1424. Bobe, B. J., & Kober, R. (2015). Measuring organisational capabilities in the higher education sector. Education & Training, 57(3), 322-342. Buller, J. L. (2012). The essential department chair: A comprehensive desk reference (Part of Jossey-Banks Resources for Department Heads, 6 books). John Wiley & Sons. Erkkilä, T., & Piironen, O. (2020). Trapped in university rankings: bridging global competitiveness and local innovation. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 29(1-2), 38-60. Freeman, S., Karkouti, I. M., & Ward, K. (2020). Thriving in the midst of liminality: Perspectives from department-chairs in the USA. Higher Education, 80, 895-911. Gmelch, W. H., Roberts, D., Ward, K., & Hirsch, S. (2017). A retrospective view of department chairs: Lessons learned. The Department Chair, 28(1), 1-4. Hoang, C. H., & Dang, T. T. D. (2022). A Sociocultural Perspective on Scholars Developing Research Skills via Research Communities in Vietnam. Minerva, 60(1), 81-104. Kekäle, J. (1999). Preferred’ patterns of academic leadership in different disciplinary (sub)cultures. Higher Education, 37(3), 217–238. Kruse, S. D. (2022). Department chair leadership: Exploring the role’s demands and tensions. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 50(5), 739-757. Lizier, A. L. (2023). Middle leaders in higher education: the role of social-political arrangements in prefiguring practices of middle leading. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 1-17. 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. 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. Reznik, S. D., & Sazykina, O. A. (2017). Head of a university-department: Competence and new activity priorities. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 6(1), 126-137. 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. Wald, N., & Golding, C. (2020). Why be a head of department? Exploring the positive aspects and benefits. Studies in Higher Education, 45(11), 2121-2131. Way, S. F., Morgan, A. C., Larremore, D. B., & Clauset, A. (2019). Productivity, prominence, and the effects of academic environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(22), 10729-10733.