In the ever-evolving landscape of higher education, a divide silently lingers between the academic scholars and administrators, a gulf that both parties struggle to navigate. The juxtaposition of these two groups raises fundamental questions about the nature of knowledge production and administrative efficacy. A recent study, “Disciples and practitioners of knowledge: a duoethnography on the academic-administrator divide in universities,” authored by Batters and Pangborn, takes an unprecedented approach in unveiling the intricate dynamics that foster this divide. Utilizing a duoethnographic methodology, the authors dissect the nuanced perspectives of both academics and administrators, aiming to foster understanding and collaboration.
The authors propose that the academic-administrator divide poses significant risks not only to the operational functionality of institutions but also to the core mission of universities to generate and disseminate knowledge. The growing complexity of higher education, in tandem with increasing bureaucratic demands, has led to a misalignment between the expectations of faculty and the objectives of administrators. Academic scholars often view their role primarily through the lens of teaching and research, while administrators are frequently preoccupied with compliance, funding, and institutional metrics. This schism can result in a lack of trust and cooperation, hindering educational objectives.
The study employs duoethnography—a qualitative research method that merges personal narrative and scholarly inquiry—as a lens to explore the conflicting priorities and assumptions held by both parties. By inviting both academics and administrators to share their experiences, the authors strive to illuminate the shared humanity often obscured by institutional roles. This reflective practice not only acknowledges the distinct realities of each group but also reveals common aspirations for the betterment of their institutions.
As the authors delve deeper into the administrators’ perspectives, they identify several key themes that resonate across sectors. One notable observation is the pressure that administrators face in maintaining compliance with governmental regulations and securing funding. They highlight how these responsibilities can sometimes overshadow their commitment to fostering a healthy academic environment. Many administrators express a desire to support faculty initiatives and promote scholarly endeavors, yet they often find themselves bound by the constraints of budgetary limitations and institutional hierarchies.
Conversely, the academic perspective reveals a distinct set of frustrations. Scholars often feel that their expertise is undervalued in administrative discussions, leading to a sense of disconnection from institutional decision-making. The authors portray the academic experience as one marked by a struggle against the perception that scholarly pursuits are secondary to administrative needs. This dynamic can foster resentment, with faculty feeling demoralized when their calls for greater involvement in governance are met with bureaucratic resistance.
One striking finding from the duoethnographic approach is the realization that many individuals within both camps have a shared passion for education and a commitment to the success of their universities. The authors point out that both academics and administrators are ultimately motivated by a desire to enhance student learning experiences and contribute to societal progress. By recognizing these shared values, the study encourages university stakeholders to cultivate a collaborative atmosphere that transcends traditional boundaries.
However, moving beyond recognition requires actionable steps. Batters and Pangborn suggest that fostering dialogue between these groups could be a pivotal strategy in bridging the divide. They argue that institutions need to create platforms for ongoing communication, allowing professors and administrators to actively engage in discussions about shared goals and challenges. Such interactions would create opportunities for cross-pollination of ideas and initiatives, leading to more informed decision-making and a harmonious working environment.
The authors also touch upon the importance of professional development tailored to foster mutual understanding between academic staff and administration. Training programs could emphasize the intricacies of both scholarly and administrative roles, equipping individuals with a broader toolbox for collaboration. By fostering an educational environment where both perspectives are valued and understood, universities can dismantle the barriers that traditionally hinder cooperation.
Moreover, the study emphasizes the role of leadership in addressing the academic-administrator divide. Effective leaders must not only recognize the challenges faced by each group but also actively facilitate conversations that encourage empathy and cooperation. Instead of perpetuating a culture of fear or suspicion, university leaders are urged to champion initiatives that highlight collective goals and success metrics designed to benefit all stakeholders.
The insights gleaned from Batters and Pangborn’s work could not be more timely. As universities globally grapple with the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to adapt to an increasingly digital education landscape, the importance of collaborative frameworks becomes ever more critical. The urgency to ensure that universities remain resilient necessitates a cohesive strategy that harmonizes both academic scholarship and administrative operations.
The study concludes with a call to action for stakeholders at all levels of the academic ecosystem. As they highlight the pressing need for systemic change, Batters and Pangborn remind us that the responsibility lies with everyone involved in higher education. This includes academics who must actively engage in administrative discussions, as well as administrators who must seek to amplify the voices and concerns of faculty. Together, they can shape a more integrated and effective approach to governance in academic institutions.
In summary, the academic-administrator divide is a multifaceted issue that warrants comprehensive examination and immediate action. The duoethnographic study conducted by Batters and Pangborn shines a much-needed light on this divide, calling for greater understanding, active dialogue, and collaboration. The research not only adds an important narrative to the conversation surrounding higher education governance, but it also provides actionable insights that could lead to a more unified and interconnected academic community.
As the landscape of higher education continues to shift, it is clear that bridging this divide will be fundamental to fostering a thriving, collaborative environment. Only through understanding, cooperation, and shared commitment can universities navigate the complexities of modern education and fulfill their mission of knowledge creation and dissemination.
Subject of Research: Academic-administrator divide in universities
Article Title: Disciples and practitioners of knowledge: a duoethnography on the academic-administrator divide in universities
Article References:
Batters, T., Pangborn, J. Disciples and practitioners of knowledge: a duoethnography on the academic-administrator divide in universities.
Discov Educ (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-01014-3
Image Credits: AI Generated
DOI:
Keywords: Academic administration, duoethnography, collaborative governance, higher education, academic community.
