Educational leadership in academia is described as complex (Geschwind et al. 2019; Ministry of Education, 2017) yet Solbrekke and Stensaker (2016) point out that there is a lack of research on challenges experienced by the people who have direct professional and operational responsibility for study programs.

Study program management is politically promoted as an important measure to increase quality in higher education, and Norwegian authorities have stated that "There are several indications that many program managers have an unclear mandate, and that in practice they are administrative coordinators for professionals who to a large extent continue to run education as private practitioners" (White Paper 16 (2016 - 2017), ch. 5.2 page 83). The quality report “Quality Culture in Higher Education” emphasize that good education quality requires both a professional community as well as leadership and it is pointed out that "(...) the government expects “(…) study programmes to be administered by management with clear mandates and sufficient strategic latitude to ensure that programmes are complete and coherent” (White Paper 16 (2016 - 2017) ), p. 83). The report shows that there is great variation between institutions and between different subject areas in how the management of the study programs is organized and exercised, and that it appears to be complex organization around the study programs (White Paper 16 (2016 – 2017)).

Research on study program management shows that the biggest challenges are unclear guidelines and unclear distribution of responsibilities (Frølich et al. 2016; Aamodt et al. 2016). Simultaneously, middle managers experience leadership roles as a double-edged sword, where they gain new insights into how academic and administrative tasks interact, but also experience that leadership is not recognized by colleagues and can even delay professional career development (Bjerva et al., 2023). Despite some individuals nonetheless wish to manage study programs. This paper explores the motivation of program managers in teacher education and their reflections on what shapes and directs their leadership practice.

The following research question is posed: What are the driving forces behind program management in teacher education, and what shapes program managers' leadership practices?

Leadership in and of teacher training programs is framed by governing expectations in several areas.  The primary drivers for the work of teacher education institutions are primarily framework plans and guidelines. The guidelines for the various teacher training programs are managed by the Norwegian Association of Higher Education Institutions and national professional bodies for different teacher training programs. Meld St 19 (2020 – 2021)  (White Paper) acknowledges that there is a need to give institutions more leeway to "develop these programs in collaboration with the working environment and with an eye on regional needs" (p. 75) and proposes a more overarching, and less detail-oriented, governance of study programs with a framework plan such as Primary and Lower Secondary Teacher Education. However, research show that quality work, the core function of the study program manager, is operationalized in the form of institutionalized and administrative tasks where learning outcome descriptions and quality assurance systems form formalized, external framework conditions for program management, thereby weakening the potential for local organization (Stensaker et al. 2019, p. 102; Johansen 2020). These conditions are perceived more as administrative tasks than as academic leadership, and highlight the tension that program leaders face as intermediaries between external and structural framework conditions (for example, formal quality systems with subsequent reporting and documentation) and expectations regarding leading academic development work within their respective programs (Stensaker et al., 2019, p 101; Aamodt et al 2016; Bjaalid et al., 2021).

The study has a qualitative research design which is suitable when we collect data about the context in which actions and opinions are developed (Wadel, 1991). In the study, I interview study program managers in three Norwegian Teacher Education institutions based on a purposive sampling (Cohen et al., 2018; Schreier, 2017). The study is based on primary data from focus group interviews with two newly appointed study program leaders in teacher education at the start of their leadership positions and follow-up interviews 18 months later. Furthermore, I use secondary data from two other focus group interviews with more experienced study program managers to obtain thicker descriptions (Tracey, 2010). With strategic sampling, there can be various strategies for selection, but in this study, the research question and sub-questions define who the informants should be based on a theoretical assessment of their relevance (Schreier, 2017, p. 88). Focus group interviews are a suitable method for gaining insight and understanding of meaning-making in a group (Madriz, 2000; Morgan & Hoffman, 2018). The method is particularly suitable for studies where attitudes, experiences and insight in how knowledge is produced and used in a given context, such as a professional culture, are of interest (Madriz, 2000; Lerdal & Karlsson, 2008). Focus group interviews differ from group interviews in that there is less questioning between the researcher, as interviewer, and the participants in the group, while there is a greater focus on bringing out interaction between the participants through the use of themes. I have chosen to use a thematic analysis as a tool to be able to identify, analyze and systematize recurring themes in the material (Braun & Clarke, 2008; 2022). In the interpretation of data, I have aimed to be transparent and true to the analysis process (Braun & Clarke, 2022; Morgan, 2010). The analysis follows 6 steps: (1) Familiarizing with the data: Reading through for overall image - possible themes and overall impressions in the data, (2) Initial coding: starting to identify the first codes in the material, (3) Finding a theme: systematizing and finding patterns in codes, (4) Critical review of the themes, (5) Defining and naming themes and (6) Documentation – report/article (Braun & Clarke, 2006, pp 87).

Preliminary findings and conclusions: The analysis of the material points to findings that particularly say something about study program leaders' motivation and direction for leadership practice: - Personal motivation and professional experience: Driving forces and direction in Study Program Management - Room for maneuver in leadership - Legitimacy through organization and negotiation The preliminary findings indicate that program managers experience legitimacy as administrative leaders, but to achieve academic legitimacy, they negotiate areas of responsibility. They create direction in their work through different emphasis on areas in teacher education such as collaboration with the practice field and development of a research-based education. The findings show that the participants' personal motivation and their educational and professional background provide both drive and direction in their work with study management. As newly hired, the leaders expect to enter a "knowledge culture" and a "professional community" and that there is room for maneuver. To find direction in their work, the follow-up interviews show that the study program leaders to a small extent relate to their job descriptions, but navigate based on, partly individual, interpretations of the teacher education's societal mandate. This leads to them emphasizing different approaches and negotiating to obtain specific areas of responsibility. The leaders seek room for maneuver through delegating administrative tasks, but experience that the administrative culture at the institution limits their room for maneuver and question the relationship between administrative and academic leadership. The room for maneuver is further limited by what they perceive as lack of academic leadership expectations from employees. They view the organization of leadership at their institution as potentially hindering academic legitimacy seeing obstacles in institutional structures. They openly discuss negotiating work tasks and the distribution of responsibilities with the leadership team at their institution as well as in their own units.

Aamodt, P. O., Hovdhaugen, E., Stensaker, B., Frølich, N., Maassen P. and Dalseng C. F. (2016) Utdanningsledelse. En analyse av ledere av studieprogrammer i høyere utdanning. NIFU Arbeidsnotat.2016:10. https://nifu.brage.unit.no/nifu-xmlui/handle/11250/2402016 Bjaalid, G., Husebø, D. & Moen, V. (2020). Studieprogramledelse i høyere utdanning – aksjonsforskning som grunnlag for involvering, læring og organisatoriske grenseoppganger. I S. Gjøtterud, H. Hiim, D. Husebø & L. H. Jensen (Red.). Aksjonsforskning i Norge, volum 2: Grunnlagstenkning, forskerroller og bidrag til endring i ulike kontekster (Kap. 13, s. 361–389). Cappelen Akademisk. Bjerva, T & Guldvik, I. (2023). Ledelse i akademia: En faglig karrierevei? Uniped, Vol. 46, nr. 4 2023, (s 278 – 288). Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic Analysis. A practical guide. Sage Publishing Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3:2, 77-101, DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Cohen, L., Lawrence, M & Morrison, K. (2018). Research Methods in Education, 8th edition. Routledge. Frølich, N., Gulbrandsen, M., Vabø, A., Wiers-Jenssen, J. & Aamodt, P. O. (2016). Kvalitet og samspill i universitets- og høgskolesektoren, NIFU-rapport 2/2016. https://www.nifu.no/publications/1352946/ Geschwind, L., Hansen, H.F., Pinheiro, R. & Pulkkinen, K. (2019) Governing Performance in the Nordic Universities: Where Are We Heading and What Have We Learned? In: R. Pinheiro, L. Geschwind, H.F. Hansen, & K. Pulkkinen (Eds.) (2019). Reforms, Organizational Change and Performance in Higher Education. A comparative Account from the Nordic Countries. Pp. 269-298. Palgrave Macmillian Springer Lerdal, A. & Karlsson, B. (2008) Bruk av fokusgruppeintervju. Sykepleien Forskning 2008: 3(3), (s. 72-175). Madriz E. Focus Groups in Feminist Research. (2000). I N.K. Denzin, Y.S. Lincoln (red.), Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. (s.835-850). 2. ed. Sage Publications, Inc. Meld. St. 16 (2016–2017) Report to the Storting Quality Culture in Higher Education, White Paper, Ministry of Education and Research Morgan, D. L. & Hoffman, K. (2018). Focus Groups. I U. Flick (Red.). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection (s. 250-263). Sage Publications Inc. Morgan, D. L. (2010). Reconsidering the Role of Interaction in Analyzing and Reporting Focus Groups. Qualitative Health Research 20 (5), s. 718 – 722. Schreier, M. (2018). Sampling and Generalization. In U. Flick (ed.). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection. Sage Publishing. Solbrekke, T. D. & Stensaker, B. (2016). Utdanningsledelse - Stimulering av et felles engasjement for studieprogrammene? UNIPED 2/2016 vol 39, p 144 – 157. Stensaker, B., Elken, M. & Maassen, P. (2019). Studieprogramledelse – et spørsmål om organisering? UNIPED, 42(1), 91-105.