Jonathan Grant and Tom Kennie explore the role of third space professionals, those who work between academia and various fields of practice, and suggest how universities can better support their careers by breaking down the existing binary between academic and professional service staff.
The in-tray of any university leader in the UK at this time is overflowing with challenges. No doubt at the top is financial sustainability, but until recently it would have been academic strikes. Although the pension issue, the main and original driver for the strikes, may have resolved itself for now, the current way universities are staffed is dated and still needs attention.
In addition to pensions, a range of other issues include precarity of contracts (especially for early career researchers), workload (and the impact on wellbeing and mental health), pay and lack of diversity, equality and inclusion (the ‘Four Fights’ as UCU calls them). However, one issue seems to have fallen out of the in-tray and that is the plight of third space professionals.
The idea of a third space for university staff was first developed by Celia Whitchurch. In her words, “the concept is used as way of exploring groups of staff in higher education who do not fit conventional binary descriptors such as those enshrined in ‘academic’ or ‘non-academic’ employment categories”. In universities this can include for example instructional designers for online courses, technology transfer staff, and those involved in community and civic engagement.
The main thrust of our argument was the need for less dualism between professional and academic staff, and greater permeability into and out of different sectors.
Over the summer the Higher Education Policy Institute published a report that we co-authored on ‘The characteristics and career pathways of third space research professionals: Some reflections from practice’. The main thrust of our argument was the need for less dualism between professional and academic staff, and greater permeability into and out of different sectors.
There are two ways to reduce the dualism – the first is to have a single employment contract for all university staff. The trouble with this route is that it would butt up against the self-governance model of academia, including issues of academic freedom. This is not to say that we are against such an approach, but we acknowledge the practical challenge of implementation. An alternative route for reform would be to introduce three (or multiple) types of employment contract, thereby eroding the dualism. The first for academic staff, the second for professional staff and the third for hybrid academic or academic related roles (ie third space staff, but we want to move away from that language as it has a sense of ‘othering’).
In practice third space employment contracts are often identical to professional staff, although they are likely to be operating in part in an academic space by publishing papers, engaging in thought leadership and at times raising (research) funding. Similarly, career frameworks, performance and appraisal systems and salary structures are often inappropriately embedded in either side of the dualism of academic-professional staff and as a result do not reflect unique role of these third space professionals. As noted in an anonymous Guardian article in 2017: “Without a middle ground, many university staff will find their career options stunted”.
In practice third space employment contracts are often identical to professional staff, although they are likely to be operating in part in an academic space by publishing papers, engaging in thought leadership and at times raising (research) funding.
The existence of the third space research professional challenges traditional institutional HR structures and processes but, largely to date, the university ‘system’ has worked round them. For example, in recruiting third space professionals from outside the sector there is often a discussion about what ‘contract to put them on’ – that is whether it is an academic contract or a professional staff contract. This matters as currently career progression in the third space, is often uncharted, and the salary and working practices of third space professionals are often set by norms outside higher education.
But a contractual alignment with the unique role of third space professionals is only part of the challenge. Once in employment universities need to support these people in ‘wayfinding’ a career that is productive, recognised and valued. Part of this wayfinding will be transitioning in and out of the higher education sector.
Transitions, have beginnings and endings and involve multiple changes in work and life. They are situational – a change in role, organisation, office – but are also psychological, requiring institutional empathy, understanding and support, and individual courage, resilience and reflectivity. The combination of the situational and psychological may determine the success of a transition.
For example, it is often the case that technical research third space staff are highly qualified (for example have a PhD) with deep expertise in their specialism but have not followed an academic route. In this case there is often an issue of identity with highly qualified research technicians feeling ‘othered’ by academic staff. This perception arises from the dualism of ‘academic apartheid’ that intentionally excludes people from the ‘academy’. The fact that they sometimes feel ‘second class citizens’ or ‘failed academics’ gets to a broader issue of research culture, academic research incentives and hyper competitivity in research.
Irrespective of the routes in and out of these third spaces, based on our experience, we would argue that universities are pretty poor at supporting individual as they make these transitions.
This sentiment of feeling an ‘outsider’ is also evident for people entering from sectors other than higher education. However, the issues are somewhat different. There is often a lack of understanding (and indeed at times incredulity) about how universities function. Part of this is culture but also involves structure and processes. The apparent lack of pace, limited or non-existent support (often expressed as a ‘sink or swim’) and ambiguous personal goals and objectives all contribute to a sense of confusion potentially undermining self-confidence and self-esteem.
Irrespective of the routes in and out of these third spaces, based on our experience, we would argue that universities are pretty poor at supporting individual as they make these transitions. We would suggest that universities should place increased emphasis on recognising the many transition challenges which exist and find approaches to accelerate entry and reduce risks of demotivation, derailment at an early stage or decision to exit. For example, explicit ‘onboarding’ policies and programs for third space research staff who come from outside the sector, could include an exploration of the history of universities, their unique governance structures, the consequential cultures and current trends in the policy environment for higher education. Similarly, supporting individuals who are transitioning into third spaces from within the sector are likely to pay dividends in ensuring these individuals maximise the potential of their chosen path.
The content generated on this blog is for information purposes only. This Article gives the views and opinions of the authors and does not reflect the views and opinions of the Impact of Social Science blog (the blog), nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science. Please review our comments policy if you have any concerns on posting a comment below.
Image Credit: Marie Maerz on Shutterstock.
