The proposal presented here is part of a broader research project: "Study of the initial training of education professionals at the University of Malaga: analysis and proposals for improvement" (funded by the University of Malaga's Plan Propio, 2022-UMAPR 00009), which is being carried out by the Institute for Research in Education Professional Training. The aim of this project is to analyse and understand the training processes of education professionals, with the intention of providing evidence for the process of improving and transforming their syllabus. To this end, we have worked with different groups within the centre: teaching staff, students, academic managers and graduates from the last five years. 

In this paper, we present the work carried out with academic managers at the faculty at different levels of management: Dean's Office, departments and degree coordination. The institutional framework for this training, the University, offers a rigid and highly structured model in Spain, often far removed from pedagogical advances (Martínez Bonafé, 2018). In this context, the academic leaders of the faculties that train education professionals are subject to the tensions inherent in this scenario, exacerbated by their own pedagogical beliefs, which do not always coincide. These tensions are manifested in political changes (national and international) and their consequences for education and management models, the demands of international assessments and the conditions they establish for ways of governance, and the inertia of the individualistic, commercialised and utilitarian practices in which we are entrenched. Academic leaders thus translate this situation in particular ways, highlighting the different sources of pressure at work. 

In this regard, it is important to question the exercise of democracy in the context of management, governance models and their performativity, the educational and pedagogical content of their actions, and their impact on the possibilities for generating alternatives for change and transformation of the system. Technical management would seem to lead us to immobility and the reproduction of political and/or administrative slogans, while participatory democratic management could guarantee processes of transformation.

We are therefore concerned with knowing, analysing and understanding the role that these academic leaders are playing in the construction of the institutional frameworks in which the training of education professionals takes place. From our point of view, little attention has been paid to this focus in research on teacher training. Rather, the focus has been on training processes, overlooking the institutional framework in which they take place. That is why, in this research, educational leaders constitute one of the relevant axes that is offering relevant elements for understanding the existing pedagogical model in education professional training centres. The current socio-political scenario requires addressing new complexities that largely fall into the hands of managers; or at least, they are not unrelated to their actions. 

To this end, we have taken into account the three levels of management that operate in these centres. On the one hand, the dean's office, as the main management body, and the figures that comprise it. Mainly, the dean and the person responsible for organising teaching, the vice-dean of Academic Planning. Secondly, the department heads, as they are directly responsible for the teaching staff and the subjects in the curriculum. And finally, the degree coordinators, who are responsible for ensuring the proper development of the studies.

The research is carried out in accordance with a qualitative research design, combining different research strategies. Specifically, in-depth interviews and focus groups. The research group is made up of 12 female researchers and 4 male researchers from different fields of knowledge within the Faculty of Education Sciences. This allowed us to gain a broad overview of the complexity of a faculty with different academic and pedagogical sensibilities. A research technician is also involved throughout the data collection and analysis phase. The project began in 2023 and is currently in the final stages of report writing and dissemination of results. The research begins with the personal narrative of each member of the research team about their training experience, both as students and as teachers. This provides a framework for understanding the team's starting points, which will be made explicit throughout the project and in its results. In the case of the research on academic leaders, the research team is composed of four members, two women and two men. Seven subjects participated in the research: the Dean, the Vice-Dean of Academic Planning, the Director of the Department of Teaching and Educational Organisation, the Director of the Department of Theory and History of Education, the Director of the Department of Mathematics, Social Sciences and Experimental Sciences Teaching, the Coordinator of the Primary Education Degree and the Coordinator of the Social Sciences Degree. An attempt was also made to include the president of the student council, but it was not possible for him to participate. Each of us was responsible for interviewing two academic leaders. The interviews were transcribed and returned to the participants for review and further information. Based on this, the research team agreed on the categories of analysis. The NVivo software programme, v. 14, was used for this purpose. In a second phase, a preliminary report of the interviews was submitted to a discussion group with the participation of three of these participants, who were joined by other managers who had not participated in the interview phase. A total of seven people with the same management profile participated in the discussion group. Key to participant codes: Coord-EdSoc = Degree coordinator, BA in Social Education. Coord-EdPrim = Degree coordinator, BA in Primary Education Dir-DOE = Head of department, Didactics and School Organisation Dir-DidCCSS = Head of department, Didactics (Mathematics, Social Sciences & Experimental Sciences) Dean = Dean

Tensions arise that cut across the categories of analysis. Disputes emerge that build (and wear down) the work of coordinators and managers, revealing resistance and possibilities for improvement. First, the reform of the curricula: a space in dispute: "[...] talking about the subjects (...) what we could remove, what we could put there. Pandora's box has been opened." (Coord-EdSoc). A criticism of this rationality, which displaces the pedagogical meaning, is made explicit: "the vision we want to have is not that of a cake that we are going to divide into pieces" (Dir-DidCCSS). This tension rewards corporatist negotiation tasks rather than the coherence of the educational project. Second, the university-school tension (theory-practice): clash of professional narratives. It points to the perception of students when they arrive at the centre: "this... has nothing to do with what the university is telling me" (Dir-DOE). In addition, it calls for "exchange with teachers... with innovative backgrounds" and a "stable network of centres" (Dean), pointing to the need for situated knowledge. Third, the tension between cooperation and meritocracy: "I'm not going to the meeting (...) I'm going to start writing because I have to send articles to Q1 magazine" (Coord-EdPrim); coordination is limited and incentivised: "no one collaborated unless I gave them a certificate" (Coord-EdPrim) and the distribution of teaching duties is perceived as arbitrary: "you get these three subjects and you're on your own" (Coord-EdPrim). Finally, the commitment to improvement vs. institutional and biographical limitations: "this has to be changed (...) to improve things"; at the cost of going "against the grain" without support (Coord-EdPrim) and with personal limitations "[...] I can't do any more" (Coord-EdSoc). This highlights areas of interest in performance associated with university leadership styles, roles performed and the influence of personal trajectories and visions of teaching objectives

Barnett, R. (2011). Being a university. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203811706 Biesta, G. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Paradigm Publishers. Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason: On the theory of action. Stanford University Press. Cochran-Smith, M., Villegas, A. M., Abrams, L., Chávez-Moreno, L., Mills, T., & Stern, R. (2015). Critiquing teacher preparation research: An overview of the field, part II. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(2), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114563398 Durán Ayago, A. (2022). Desde el compromiso social hasta el desarrollo sostenible: Desafíos docentes de una educación universitaria de calidad transformadora. Revista de Educación y Derecho, (1 Extraordinario), 215–238. https://doi.org/10.1344/REYD2021.1EXT.37700 Escudero, J. M. (2011). La formación inicial del profesorado: ¿Qué calidad y para quién? Revista de Educación, número extraordinario, 85–108. Fernández Cruz, F.J. y Rodríguez Legendre, F. (2024). Percepción de estudiantes y profesores sobre el desempeño innovador docente en los grados de Magisterio. Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación de Profesorado, 28(2), 267-291. https://doi.org/10.30827/profesorado.v28i2.29462 Freire, J. (2012). Educación Expandida y nuevas instituciones: ¿Es posible la transformación? En R. Díaz (coord..), Educación expandida (págs. 67-84). Sevilla: Zemos98. Galbán Lozano, S. E. y Ortega Barba, C.F. (2021). Cualidades y competencias del profesor universitario: La visión de los docentes. Revista Panamericana de Pedagogía, 31, 63-78. https://revistas.up.edu.mx/RPP/article/view/2119/1799 Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College Press. Imbernón, F. (2017). La formación y el desarrollo profesional del profesorado: Hacia una nueva cultura profesional. Graó. Kelchtermans, G. (2009). Who I am in how I teach is the message: Self‐understanding, vulnerability and reflection. Teachers and Teaching, 15(2), 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600902875332 Martínez Bonafé, J. (2018). La universidad que necesitamos. Octaedro. Murillo-Vargas, G., García-Solarte, M., & Bedoya-Dorado, C. (s.f.). La investigación en directivos universitarios: ¿Es el género un tema de interés? (ponencia / documento CLAD). Disponible en el repositorio CLAD / actas. Sánchez-Moreno, M., López-Yáñez, J., & Altopiedi, M. (2014). Liderazgo en la universidad: Perfil de mujeres y hombres gestores académicos. REICE: Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación, 12(5), 21–42. https://doi.org/10.15366/reice2014.12.5.002 Sangrà, A., Arnold, D., & Gallifa, J. (2022). Liderazgo y tensiones en la universidad: El reto de integrar la educación digital. American Journal of Distance Education, 36(1), 70–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2022.2027687 Tomás-Folch, M., Castro, D., y Feixas, M. (2012). Tensiones entre las funciones docente e investigadora del profesorado en la universidad. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 10(1), 343-367 https://doi.org/10.4995/redu.2012.6135 Zabalza, M. A. (2013). Ser profesor universitario hoy. Narcea.