Invisible forces: the management of resources by professional staff as a contribution to knowledge development in universities.
Saved in:
| Title: | Invisible forces: the management of resources by professional staff as a contribution to knowledge development in universities. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | de Jong, Stefan P. L. (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Studies in Higher Education. Jun2026, Vol. 51 Issue 6, p1240-1254. 15p. |
| Subjects: | Resource management, Professional employees, Rational-legal authority, Higher education, Academic discourse, Information sharing, Bureaucratization, Universities & colleges |
| Abstract: | This paper unpacks resource management as a contribution of professional staff to academic knowledge development. Several authors have linked the surge of professional staff to coercive bureaucratization of universities. Others have taken a somewhat more neutral perspective, arguing that the effects of professional staff on primary processes are limited as their work is only loosely coupled to academic work. However, taking a different perspective, bureaucracies may enable primary processes as well. To explore this underrepresented perspective in the literature, this paper asks: 'How do professional staff contribute to academic knowledge development?' Twenty-two members of professional staff in a diversity of roles across a multitude of organizational units of a research-intensive elite university in the US were interviewed. The interviews were analysed through the lens of the Cycle of Credit. The results show that professional staff contribute to academic knowledge development enabling, speeding up, improving and changing the content of conversions of resources. Furthermore, professional staff mediate between individual and organizational level conversions. Thus, this study nuances the discussion about professional staff by introducing the perspective of enabling bureaucrats in addition to the coercive bureaucrat frame. It also shows that the work of professional staff in fact is linked to academic work, which speaks against the idea of limited exchange between bureaucratic and academic spheres. These insights imply that we cannot fully understand academic work if we do not include professional staff in addition to academic staff in studies on this topic. Practical recommendations conclude the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Studies in Higher Education is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | This paper unpacks resource management as a contribution of professional staff to academic knowledge development. Several authors have linked the surge of professional staff to coercive bureaucratization of universities. Others have taken a somewhat more neutral perspective, arguing that the effects of professional staff on primary processes are limited as their work is only loosely coupled to academic work. However, taking a different perspective, bureaucracies may enable primary processes as well. To explore this underrepresented perspective in the literature, this paper asks: 'How do professional staff contribute to academic knowledge development?' Twenty-two members of professional staff in a diversity of roles across a multitude of organizational units of a research-intensive elite university in the US were interviewed. The interviews were analysed through the lens of the Cycle of Credit. The results show that professional staff contribute to academic knowledge development enabling, speeding up, improving and changing the content of conversions of resources. Furthermore, professional staff mediate between individual and organizational level conversions. Thus, this study nuances the discussion about professional staff by introducing the perspective of enabling bureaucrats in addition to the coercive bureaucrat frame. It also shows that the work of professional staff in fact is linked to academic work, which speaks against the idea of limited exchange between bureaucratic and academic spheres. These insights imply that we cannot fully understand academic work if we do not include professional staff in addition to academic staff in studies on this topic. Practical recommendations conclude the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 03075079 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/03075079.2025.2504446 |
