1 Introduction
Changes in the environments in which universities and other types of higher education institutions (HEI s) operate have, in the last three decades, resulted in adjustments in professional academic roles. Globalization and internationalization meant that more and more academics have embraced English as a professional language, for either teaching or research (Sørensen et al., 2019). The rise of the ‘third mission’ implied that more and more academic professionals became involved with engagement activities with a wide variety of external
When it comes to the core activities of teaching and research, studies from across the globe, on the changing nature of the academic profession, suggest the following trends:
- –In 2007, university professors located in advanced (middle to high income) countries reported working about 48 hours per week, compared to 40 hours for emerging economies;
- –Full professors spent, on average, 32% of their working time on teaching, compared to 38% on research;
- –Junior academics based at universities spend, on average, a higher proportion of their working time on research and a lower proportion on teaching, when compared to professors;
- –The overwhelming majority (84%) of professors report, on average, that research activities help reinforce their teaching, aligned with the Humboldtian idea of the teaching-research nexus;
- –A substantial, and growing, proportion of working time dedicated to non-core tasks, like service and administration, is being reported; up to 17 hours per week in some cases (Teichler et al., 2013; Kehm & Teichler, 2013).
Recent studies from the Nordic region show that the academic profession’s roles and task expectations have increased considerably in the last two decades (Avramović, 2024). Academics are, amongst other things, expected to improve the global standing (research rankings) of their universities and
When it comes to digitalization, studies suggest that the phenomenon is having an impact in terms of traditional teaching tasks and roles (e.g., around blended learning), among other aspects, putting pressures on staff to become more digitally literate (Lazareva & Tømte, 2024). The wide adoption of learning management systems (LMS) within teaching has changed the nature in which teachers and students interact, digitally, beyond the classroom (Dobre, 2015). Educational developers, Information and Communications Technology (ICT) experts and other types of professional support staff are increasingly gaining prominence and influence within university settings (Ryttberg & Geschwind, 2017; Scholkmann, 2023), resulting in new tensions and dilemmas insofar academic roles. As is the case of universities as organizations (Pekkola et al., 2022), the nature of the modern academic profession is increasingly hybrid(ised) in nature (Siekkinen et al., 2020; Pekkola et al., 2021; Avramovic, 2024).
This chapter seeks to provide new empirical and conceptual insights by posing the question: How are academic roles and relations adjusting to hybridity derived from ongoing digitalisation processes within Nordic universities? Empirically, the study builds on qualitative datasets from two case universities located in a Nordic country. In the next section we provide an elucidation of the conceptual approach for the study, followed by an exposition of its methodological underpinnings. After a presentation of key findings, the chapter discusses them in the light of the conceptual model adopted and the extant literature, followed by a short reflection insofar its research implications.
2 Digitalization, Hybridity and Changing Academic Roles
The theoretical and analytical approach draws on several strands of literature, including studies of hybridity in the nonprofit sector. In the latter, hybridity generally denotes the intricate organizational structures emerging when organizations and communities grapple with diverse task assignments, legitimacy challenges, and/or resource scarcities (McMullin & Skelcher, 2018). Hybridity has also been defined as the blending of what were considered to be incompatible approaches into ‘hybrids’ (Smith, 2010). In this sense, hybrid organizations are seen as organizations that combine two or more of the three traditional logics (Jay, 2013; Pache & Santos, 2013) and thus blur the boundaries between the “private,” “public,” and “non-profit” sectors (Billis, 2010; Ebrahim et al., 2014).
In addition, the chapter draws upon key concepts from the literature on the changing HE and academic landscapes, such as ‘third-space professionals’ (Klein et al., 2013; Martin et al., 2011), ‘boundary spanners’ (Burns & Baker, 2016; Weerts & Sandmann, 2010), ‘boundary crossers’ (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011) and ‘hybrid educators’ (Jennings & Peloso, 2010; Williams, 2014). The latter concepts generally examine how individuals or entities operate at the interface between different groups, organizations, and/or domains. The chief argument, to be tested empirically in this chapter, is that traditional teaching roles and professional relations of academic staff are changing, both in scope and nature, following the growth of digital technology in HE. One starting assumption is that the growing hybridity is likely to negatively affect the traditional autonomy associated with the teaching role in terms of the freedom to choose instructional methods, pedagogical orientations, learning assessments, etc.
Traditionally, the educational aspect of academic endeavours within universities revolved around delivering lectures to classes, ranging from small to very large. The academic role of teaching, in this regard, involves instructors delivering content to students in a one-way communication format, typically through spoken presentations in a classroom setting (Hovenga & Bricknell, 2006). In this capacity, academic staff were responsible for developing lectures, creating assessments, and grading assignments for all students in the class. Additional student-lecturer interaction often took place in supplementary tutorial sessions, typically led by junior academics or graduate assistants. In such traditional academic settings, interactions between academic staff, university administration, students and third-space professionals were limited.
However, academic roles and relations of academic staff have been challenged, re-shaped and evolved in the last three decades or so (Lingard & McCollow, 1996; McInnis, 1999). Scholars have identified the integration of digital technology into teaching and learning (as well as research) as an important factor in the transformation of academic roles and relations (Collis & Messing, 2001; Yetton, 1997). The integration of digital tools necessitates a fundamental
Across the Nordic countries, over the past two decades government-mandated reforms have targeted digitalization to ensure effective and efficient public service delivery (Tømte et al., 2020). The digital efforts by government and HEI s alike have been accelerated following the outbreak of COVID-19 in the Spring of 2020 (Laterza et al., 2023; Tømte et al., 2020). Academic institutions worldwide have been compelled to embrace digital education and the expansion of digital systems (Pinheiro et al., 2023b). As a non-linear and complex process, digitalization encompasses the upgrading (of old) and the introduction of new work-related rules, procedures, and methods, in tandem with the training of both academic and non-academic staff on digital platforms and learning management systems (Laterza et al., 2020; Pinheiro et al., 2023a).
The adoption of online teaching, flipped classrooms, uploading of materials, digital assessment of students, provision of feedback, digital communications, meetings and interactions between academic and non-academic staff have become the new normality within the university environment (Tømte et al., 2019). Providing online and onsite support to address connectivity issues and other emergencies and disseminating new digital technologies to faculties and departments has become an important support task for ICT and learning platform experts, which have played a key role in the management of digital teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic (Laterza et al., 2023; Pinheiro et al., 2023b).
These developments have shaped relationships within universities and with external stakeholders, and have encouraged alternative ways of working and learning, giving rise to new roles and power relations that have merged with what is considered traditional teaching roles within HEI s (Hermansen & Lund, 2023; Tømte & Lazareva, 2023). Such transformation, conceived here largely as a direct consequence of digitalization, leads to changes in academic identities and fosters the blurring of the traditional roles of teachers and students with non-academic roles, resulting in the emergence of complex hybrid roles (Alton et al., 2024; Phompun et al., 2013; Zeichner, 2010a, b). These boundary spanning roles may take a wide variety of forms depending on the context and task at hand, ranging from ‘fixer’, ‘bridger’, ‘broker’, ‘innovator’, ‘interpreter’, ‘communicator’, ‘reticultist’, ‘entrepreneur’ and/or ‘coordinator’ (Williams, 2013; van Meerkerk & Edelenbos, 2018). In short, the inherent complexity associated with growing hybridity within university environments, both endogenous
When it comes to power relations,1 new public management (NPM) inspired reforms have introduced managerialism – performance management, quality assessment, benchmarking, etc.- within universities (Santiago et al., 2006), including those in the Nordic countries (Hansen et al., 2019; Pinheiro et al., 2019). These changes, in turn, have resulted into a centralisation of decision-making within universities, with many bottom-up collegial structures being replaced by or co-existing with more hierarchical, managerially oriented structures (Torjesen et al., 2017; Kekäle & Pinheiro, 2024). One of the many unintended consequences of such developments was the decline in the levels of trust between academics and university managers (Hansen et al., 2019), resulting in power struggles and growing alienation amongst academics (Poutanen 2023; Nokkala et al., 2023).
While certain academic roles seem to have remained relatively unchanged, others underwent a substantial shift towards greater fluidity, including pedagogical principles for digitally mediated teaching and the establishment of new routines supporting collective teaching approaches (Hermansen & Lund, 2023). Academic staff multiple roles within HEI s, because of digitalization, operate at the interface or boundary between different sub-units and external stakeholders. Daily interactions between academic staff, the university, students, and third-space professionals help shape and redefine academic roles (Martin et al., 2011; Klein et al., 2013).
The study posits that digitalization, both prior to and after COVID-19, has led to the emergence of new, non-academic roles for university academic staff, herein referred to as hybrid roles. The latter emerge through a web of tripolar interactions, including staff interactions with the university (administration, faculty and department level), with students, often mediated by technology, and with third-space professionals, both internal and external to the university. Thus, the complexity derived from digitalisation, we argue, is leading to growing hybridity insofar academic roles within teaching. How this process manifests itself empirically is illustrated and discussed in the following sections, using Norway as a case study.
3 Data and Methodology
The datasets used encompass a total of 6 semi-structured interviews (both online and face-face) conducted during the winter of 2023. Data were gathered from two Norwegian universities characterized by contrasting sizes and
Furthermore, the study builds on ethnographic data and insights collected through direct participations and observations at different teaching development activities at Norwegian HEI s as well as the co-authors’ roles as academic teachers and active users of various digital learning platforms.
4 Data Findings
The data analyses confirm the rise of a hybrid role for academic staff emerging through the growing integration of digital technology in HE. Digitization has emerged in the form of online teaching, flipped classrooms, uploading of materials, digital assessment of students, provision of feedback, digital communications, and digital meetings. These developments have blurred academic-staff interactions within and outside the university environment, giving rise to a hybrid role in which academic staff combine academic and non-academic responsibilities and interactions together with academic and non-academic stakeholders. These three types of interactions and how they impact the roles of academic staff in a hybrid form are presented and discussed below.
4.1 Academic Staff and Internal Interactions: Administration, Faculty, and Department
We have prioritized the use of different resources; the focus on study quality is about making a holistic learning design where the digital resources reinforce and build on what already exists.
With digitalization projects, you experience 100% teaching and no research because it’s so time-consuming.
On the other hand, this process has also resulted in a new set of tensions and dilemmas, notably:
- –Varying demands leading to the emergence of new academic and non-academic roles especially in communicating and soliciting support from the university, faculty and department levels.
- –Academic staff responding to the co-existence of several leadership structures at the university, faculty and department levels with academic and administrative leaders working together (both creating tensions and new transaction costs).
- –The combination of administrative and academic roles, and the need to balance growing academic workloads and expansive administrative responsibilities for academic staff.
In short, the integration of digital technologies in HE has increased the academic and administrative workload for academic staff, blurring the boundaries between academic and non-academic roles. This has led to “managerial hybridity,” where academic staff must balance growing academic tasks with expanding administrative responsibilities. This finding highlights how digitization has contributed to role hybridity by requiring academic staff to navigate both academic and administrative duties, blending their traditional roles with new responsibilities related to their teaching.
4.2 Academic Staff and Third Space Professionals’ Interactions
One significant effect of the integration and growth of digitalization from the data lies on the emergence of third space professionals like educational and platform developers as well as ICT staff, who provide required technological
- –Although academics typically possess a significant degree of autonomy and decision-making authority, they are subjected to decisions imposed by providers of digital tools and materials in certain essential areas. Such decisions, in turn, significantly impact their autonomy as teachers, to choose instructional methods independently from external expectations and demands.
- –The emergence of new support roles and relations, with academic staff communicating and responding to new/emerging demands and requirements from internal digital experts on the one hand and external platform providers on the other.
- –Increased competition for skills and resources, and the need for strategic prioritisation.
- –Digitalization has expanded access to a vast array of educational materials, research databases, and online tools, enabling academic staff to enhance their teaching and research activities.
There has been a collaboration between administrative and scientific forces. We’ve worked closely with the learning lab, which is good at contributing with everything from digital tools to pedagogy.
Although academics typically possess a significant degree of autonomy, they are now subjected to decisions imposed by providers of digital tools and materials in essential areas.
This finding highlights the hybrid nature of academic roles as they extend beyond traditional boundaries to include collaborations with third space professionals, further integrating non-academic responsibilities into their work, and limiting their autonomy as teachers.
4.3 Academic Staff Roles and Student Interactions
The variety of teaching and learning options provided by the new digital technologies allows education to be provided in an appropriate manner to a broader student population than ever before. Universities must provide teaching academics with effective guidance in managing their workload, appropriate support, and sufficient materials to students. Digital technology provides distance education programs, particularly overseas, and in a combined approach by universities situated over multiple campuses (as is the case of formal alliances and other types of inter-university partnerships). Digital tools have also catapulted technology as a central infrastructure to support teaching and learning both onsite and across remote locations beyond the main university campus. In doing so, it has allowed universities to reach non-traditional students audiences, like adult learners, putting pressure on academics to revise old and devise new academic programs (curriculum) and adopt innovative teaching approaches.
As a consequence of these transformations, hybrid academic work is manifested in the form of online teaching, flipped classrooms, uploading of materials, digital assessment of students, provision of feedback, digital communications, meetings and interactions between academics and students. These have become the new normality (routine task) within the university environment. As for the academic roles related to interactions with students, these have become hybridized along several fronts, namely:
- –Expanding access to learning materials through digital platforms. Digitalization has expanded access to learning materials and support through online platforms, making education more accessible regardless of geographical location or time constraints. However, reliance on digital communication tools has also introduced new challenges. As one faculty member noted:
Students use Canvas as a communication platform. Since I get emails from everywhere, I don’t go into Canvas to get my emails forwarded. And then
it’s impossible to know if I’m the only one who has received this email or if it has reached everyone involved in teaching a subject.
This reflects the difficulties academics face in managing multiple communication channels and ensuring clear, effective student engagement.
- –Blurring of online and face-to-face interactions between academic staff and students. While digitalization has created flexible learning environments, it has also disrupted traditional modes of engagement. One professor described the challenge of balancing different communication tools:
For example, we now have three subjects that are quite closely linked. They are a joint project. And together, five, no, six students have received this email. We have two on each subject, plus a swarm of teaching assistants. When I receive a message, I don’t know if it’s … If it had been email, I would have seen that it was CC’d and the main recipient was someone else.
This highlights how digital platforms can sometimes fragment communication rather than streamline it.
- –Enhanced communications and provision of feedback (assessment) mechanisms. Faculty members report increased reliance on digital evaluation tools, yet these systems often introduce technical barriers. One faculty member recounted difficulties with automated student surveys:
We also experience apification, for example, with midway evaluation, which we have in Canvas. Many have had problems setting up a survey to trigger at a certain point in time. We experienced, last year, that a lot of data was lost due to a data problem with the supplier.
These challenges underscore the need for user-friendly and reliable digital assessment platforms.
- –Personalization of learning experiences through digital assessments and analytics. Digitalization has enabled more tailored feedback mechanisms, allowing faculty to track student progress through data analytics, and adjust teaching strategies accordingly. However, response rates to digital feedback mechanisms remain a concern. One professor explained:
If you gather students in a room with the elected representatives, then it’s those who like to speak who raise their hands and say something. In a
digital setting, those who like filling out forms will do so, and those who are dissatisfied will fill them out to vent.
This raises questions about the representativeness of digital feedback and how student engagement can be more inclusively captured, along the following lines:
- –Expanded access to a vast array of educational materials, research databases, and online tools. This has enabled academic staff to enhance their teaching (and research) activities. Faculty members have leveraged digital tools to integrate multimedia elements such as videos, simulations, and interactive exercises, enriching the learning experience. However, mastering these tools requires significant time and effort. As one academic noted, “every time you learn something new, you have to learn something new again.” This illustrates the continuous learning curve faculty members face as they adapt to new technologies.
- –Leveraging of digital tools to incorporate multimedia elements, such as videos, simulations, and interactive exercises, into academics’ teaching materials. This is reported to have enriched the learning experience, captures students’ attention, and enhances engagement during interactions. Teachers’ new role encompasses acquiring a new set of digital skills and competencies essential to administer such responsibilities.
- –Finally, artificial intelligence (AI) is the latest manifestation of this digital transition, posing both new challenges but also opportunities in terms of teaching and learning, an aspect being taken rather seriously, strategically speaking, within the case universities.
In effect, digital technologies have transformed academic staff interactions with students by enabling flexible, personalized, and multimedia-enhanced learning experiences. However, these changes have also introduced new complexities, requiring academics to develop digital competencies while navigating fragmented communication systems and evolving feedback mechanisms. The ongoing digital transition continues to shape the hybrid nature of academic roles, blurring distinctions between online and face-to-face engagement in HE.
5 Conclusive Discussion
Digitalisation has disrupted the activities of HEI s worldwide, a process that preceded the ‘forced’ adoption of digital tools and teaching and learning platforms during and following the COVID-19 pandemic. This chapter set out to investigate
The data suggest that growing hybridisation resulting from digitalisation is leading to a reduction on the levels of autonomy amongst academics when it comes to teaching, and creating new tensions resulting from multiple external influences in teaching-related activities. These include but are not limited to the need to coordinate and communicate across the board, including with external experts, as well as the often-unintended consequences resulting from the uncritical adoption of digital tools and platforms without considering their impact on teaching and learning dimensions (pedagogical approaches, students and teachers’ engagements, quality and learning assessment methods, etc). Moreover, changes in academic roles are also affecting academic practices (see Tømte et al. in this volume), as the two are intrinsically connected with one another (cf. Alvarez et al., 2009).
In terms of changing academic roles more broadly, these can be tied to the ways in which, as boundary spanners, the key actors referred to above (teachers, administrators/support staff and students) are influencing one another in sofar the tasks and challenges at hand. In doing so, they perform a wide variety of boundary spanning roles, both within and across university boundaries, ranging from fixer, bridger, broker and/or innovator (van Meerkerk & Edelenbos, 2018), depending on the specific task and the contextual circumstances, e.g., during the recent Covid-19 crisis (Pinheiro et al., 2023a, 2023b).
The data also show evidence of emerging academic roles more directed towards communication and collaboration in the form of ‘interpreter’, ‘communicator’, ‘reticultist’, ‘entrepreneur’ and/or ‘coordinator’ (Williams, 2013). Lastly, as a result of digitalisation processes within teaching, academic staff across the two cases universities were found to perform a wide variety of new/emerging roles that included ‘exchanging’, ‘linking’, ‘facilitating’ and ‘intervening’ (Barner-Rasmussen, 2017). In short, the associated terms of ‘boundary spanners’ (Burns & Baker, 2016; Weerts & Sandmann, 2010), ‘boundary crossers’ (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011) and ‘hybrid educators’ (Jennings & Peloso, 2010; Williams, 2014) seem to apply rather nicely to the Nordic situation in the context of creeping digitalisation.
From a broader perspective, the data findings reported in this chapter should be assessed in the light of ongoing structural transformations at HEI s in the Nordics and elsewhere. These include; reductions in public funding, a stronger policy emphasis on teaching when compared to research, the rise of quality and assessment cultures, an impetus given to graduate employability, co-creation of knowledge together with external stakeholders, as well as the
Needless to say this study (limited in scope and scale) has obvious limitations and thus more research is needed to unpack the complex web of relations that has been identified, as well as to determine the extent to which digitalisation performs a transformative role when it comes to teaching and learning in HE both in the Nordics and beyond.
Acknowledgement
This study was partly funded by Norforsk grant 136307, “Unpacking emerging hybrid arrangements in Nordic higher education” under the program NOS-HS Exploratory Workshops 2022. We also want to thank two anonymous reviewers, the book editors, and participants attending both a special panel at the 2024 IRSPM conference in Tampere, Finland, as well as a book workshop in the same location, for constructive comments and suggestions. The usual caveats apply.
Note
For seminal discussions on types of academic authority and the challenges associated with academic control, see Clark (1983, pp. 110–124) and Birnbaum (1988, pp. 9–15), respectively.
References
Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169.
Alvarez, I., Guasch, T., & Espasa, A. (2009). University teacher roles and competencies in online learning environments: A theoretical analysis of teaching and learning practices. European Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619760802624104
Alton, D., Auxtova, K., O’Rourke, G., Tanner, S., Drummond, C., Duggan, J., & Jooss, S. (2024). A tech-tonic shift: the complex dance of technology-enabled-learning and academic identity work in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 50(8), 1762–1776. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2394560
Avramović, A. (2024). Great expectations: Change and continuity in academic roles and tasks. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 28(3), 40–64. https://doi.org/10.58235/sjpa.2024.13153
Avramović, A., Geschwind, L., Pekkola, E., & Pinheiro, R. (2021). Gender and the marketisation of higher education: A Nordic tale. In J. D. Branch & B. Christiansen (Eds.), The marketisation of higher education: Concepts, cases, and criticisms (pp. 267–292). Springer.
Billis, D. (2010). Hybrid organizations and the third sector: Challenges for practice, theory and policy. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. Jossey-Bass.
Burns, R. W., & Baker, W. (2016). The boundary spanner in professional development schools: In search of common nomenclature. School-University Partnerships, 9(2), 28–39.
Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: academic organization in cross-national perspective. University of California Press.
Collis, B., & Messing, J. (2001). Usage, attitudes and workload implications for a Web-based learning environment. ALT-J, 9(1), 17–25.
Dobre, I. (2015). Learning management systems for higher education-an overview of available options for higher education organizations. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 313–320.
Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 417–436.
Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J., & Mair, J. (2014). The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 81–100.
Foss Hansen, H., Aarrevaara, T., Geschwind, L., & Stensaker, B. (2019). Evaluation practices and impact: Overload? In R. Pinheiro, L. Geschwind, H. Foss Hansen, & K. Pulkkinen (Eds.), Reforms, organizational change and performance in higher education: A comparative account from the Nordic countries (pp. 235–266). Springer Nature.
Geschwind, L., Pasia, J. W., & Barman, L. (2022). The university as Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft: Early career academics on competition, collaboration, and performance requirements. In C. Sarrico, M. J. Rosa, & T. Carvalho (Eds.), Research handbook on academic careers and managing academics (pp. 420–434). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Hansen, H. F., Geschwind, L., Kivistö, J., Pekkola, E., Pinheiro, R., & Pulkkinen, K. (2019). Balancing accountability and trust: university reforms in the Nordic countries. Higher Education, 78(3), 557–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-0358-2
Hazelkorn, E., Coates, H., & McCormick, A. C. (2018). Research handbook on quality, performance and accountability in higher education. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Hermansen, H., & Lund, A. (2023). Beyond implementation: Enabling sustainable transformations of digital teaching and learning in higher education. In R. Pinheiro, C. Tømte, L. Barman, L. Degn, & L. Geschwind (Eds.), Digital transformations in Nordic higher education (pp. 97–118). Springer International Publishing.
Hovenga, E., & Bricknell, L. (2006). Changing academic roles. Methods of Information in Medicine, 45(3), 288–293.
Jay, J. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137–159.
Jennings, G., & Peloso, J. M. (2010). The underutilized potential of the hybrid educator in teacher education. The New Educator, 6(2), 153–162.
Kehm, B. M., & Teichler, U. (2013). The academic profession in Europe: New tasks and new challenges. Springer.
Kekäle, J., & Pinheiro, R. (2024). Complexity, resilience, and human resource management: Illustration from Nordic higher education. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 14(4), 49–69. https://doi.org/10.18291/njwls.146803
Kim, K. N. (2019). Teachers’ administrative workload crowding out instructional activities. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 39(1), 31–49.
Klein, E. J., Taylor, M., Onore, C., Strom, K., & Abrams, L. (2013). Finding a third space in teacher education: Creating an urban teacher residency. Teaching Education, 24(1), 27–57.
Klenk, T., Antonowicz, D., Geschwind, L., Pinheiro, R., & Pokorska, A. (2022). Taking women on boards: A comparative analysis of public policies in higher education. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 6(2), 128–152.
Laterza, V., Asante, M. O., Tømte, C. E., & Pinheiro, R. (2023). Implementing digital transformations in higher education following COVID-19: A Norwegian case study. In R. Pinheiro, C. Tømte, L. Barman, L. Degn, & L. Geschwind (Eds.), Digital transformations in Nordic higher education (pp. 243–266). Palgrave.
Laterza, V., Tømte, C. E., & Pinheiro, R. T. (2020). Digital transformations with “Nordic characteristics”? Latest trends in the digitalisation of teaching and learning in Nordic higher education. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 15(4), 225–233.
Lazareva, A., & Tømte, C. E. (2024). Flexible learning spaces as an arena for developing professional digital competence through small group collaboration. Teachers and Teaching, 30(4), 489–508.
Lingard, B., & McCollow, J. (1996). Changing discourses and practices of academic work. Australian Universities’ Review, 39(2), 11–19.
Maassen, P., & Stensaker, B. (2019). From organised anarchy to de‐coupled bureaucracy: The transformation of university organisation. Higher Education Quarterly, 73(4), 456–468.
Martin, S. D., Snow, J. L., & Franklin Torrez, C. A. (2011). Navigating the terrain of third space: Tensions with/in relationships in school-university partnerships. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(3), 299–311.
McInnis, C. (1999). The work roles of academics in Australian universities. US Department of Education.
McMullin, C., & Skelcher, C. (2018). The impact of societal-level institutional logics on hybridity: Evidence from nonprofit organizations in England and France. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 29(5), 911–924.
Nokkala, T., Aarnikoivu, M., & Saarinen, T. (2023). “We shouldn’t let academia exhaust ourselves anymore!”: Pandemic practices and the changing psychological contract in twenty-first-century academia. In R. Pinheiro, E. Balbachevsky, P. Pillay, & A. Yonezawa (Eds.), The impact of Covid-19 on the institutional fabric of higher education: Old patterns, new dynamics, and changing rules? (pp. 321–344). Palgrave.
Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0405
Pekkola, E., Pinheiro, R., Geschwind, L., Siekkinen, T., Carvalho, T., & Pulkkinen, K. (2021). Nested hybridity and value definition in public higher education. In J. Vakkuri & J.-E. Johanson (Eds.), Hybrid governance, organisations and society: Value creation perspectives (pp. 59–80). Routledge.
Pekkola, E., Pinheiro, R., Geschwind, L., Siekkinen, T., Pulkkinen, K., & Carvalho, T. (2022). Hybridity in Nordic higher education. International Journal of Public Administration, 45(2), 171–184.
Phompun, C., Thongthew, S., & Zeichner, K. M. (2013). The use of the hybridity theory and the third space concept to develop a teaching identities enhancement program for student teachers. Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences Studies (Former Name Silpakorn University Journal of Social Sciences, Humanities, and Arts), 13(1), 197–214.
Pietilä, M., & Pinheiro, R. (2021). Reaching for different ends through tenure track – Institutional logics in university career systems. Higher Education, 81(6), 1197–1213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00606-2
Pinheiro, R., & Pulkkinen, K. (2023). Collaborating for competition? Unpacking ambiguities and paradoxes across the academic profession. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 27(1), 53–73.
Pinheiro, R., Geschwind, L., Hansen, H. F., & Pulkkinen, K. (2019). Reforms, organizational change and performance in higher education: A comparative account from the Nordic countries. Palgrave.
Pinheiro, R., Langa, P., & Pausits, A. (2015). One and two equals three? The third mission of higher education institutions. European Journal of Higher Education, 5(3), 233–249.
Pinheiro, R., Tømte, C., Barman, L., Degn, L., & Geschwind, L. (Eds.). (2023a). Digital transformation in Nordic higher education. Palgrave.
Pinheiro, R., Tømte, C. E., Laterza, V., & Asante, M. O. (2023b). Digital transformations in higher education before and following COVID-19: A Scandinavian tale. In L. Leišytė, J. Dee, & B. J. van der Meulen (Eds.), Research handbook on the transformation of higher education (pp. 366–381). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Poutanen, M. (2023). ‘I am done with that now.’ Sense of alienations in Finnish academia. Journal of Education Policy, 38(4), 625–643.
Ryttberg, M., & Geschwind, L. (2017). Professional support staff at higher education institutions in Sweden: Roles and success factors for the job. Tertiary Education and Management, 23(4), 334–346.
Santiago, R., Carvalho, T., Amaral, A., & Meek, V. L. (2006). Changing patterns in the middle management of higher education institutions: The case of Portugal. Higher Education, 52(2), 215–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-2747-3
Scholkmann, A. (2023). Who are the frontline workers of digital transformations in higher education? A conceptual elaboration. In R. Pinheiro, C. E. Tømte, L. Barman, L. Degn, & L. Geschwind (Eds.), Digital transformations in Nordic higher education (pp. 175–195). Palgrave.
Siekkinen, T., Pekkola, E., & Carvalho, T. (2020). Change and continuity in the academic profession: Finnish universities as living labs. Higher Education, 79, 533–551.
Smith, S. R. (2010). Hybridization and nonprofit organizations: The governance challenge. Policy and Society, 29(3), 219–229.
Sørensen, M. P., Young, M., & Pedersen, P. B. (2019). Lost in transition? On the migration to English language research publications. In M. P. Sørensen, L. Geschwind, J. Kekäle, & R. Pinheiro (Eds.), The responsible university: Exploring the Nordic context and beyond (pp. 87–114). Springer.
Teichler, U., Arimoto, A., & Cummings, W. K. (2013). The changing academic profession: Major findings of a comparative survey. Springer.
Tømte, C. E., Fossland, T., Aamodt, P. O., & Degn, L. (2019). Digitalisation in higher education: mapping institutional approaches for teaching and learning. Quality in Higher Education, 25(1), 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2019.1603611
Tømte, C. E., Laterza, V., Pinheiro, R. M., & Avramovic, A. (2020). Is there a Scandinavian model for MOOC s? Understanding the MOOC phenomenon in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 15(4), 234–245.
Tømte, C. E., & Lazareva, A. (2023). Educating for professional digital competence? Exploring teacher education in a new learning space. In R. Pinheiro, C. E. Tømte, L. Barman, L. Degn, & L. Geschwind (Eds.), Digital transformations in Nordic higher education (pp. 77–96). Springer International Publishing.
Torjesen, D. O., Foss Hansen, H., Pinheiro, R., & Vrangbæk, K. (2017). The Scandinavian model in healthcare and higher education: Recentralising, decentralising or both? Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 21(1), 57–80.
Van Meerkerk, I., & Edelenbos, J. (2018). Boundary spanners in public management and governance: An interdisciplinary assessment. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Weerts, D. J., & Sandmann, L. R. (2010). Community engagement and boundary-spanning roles at research universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(6), 632–657.
Williams, J. (2013). Boundary crossing and working in the third space: Implications for a teacher educator’s identity and practice. Studying Teacher Education, 9(2), 118–129.
Williams, J. (2014). Teacher educator professional learning in the third space: Implications for identity and practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 315–326.
Yetton, P. (1997). Managing the introduction of technology in the delivery and administration of higher education. Evaluations and Investigations Programme, 97(3).
Zeichner, K. (2010a). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college-and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 89–99.
Zeichner, K. M. (2010b). Changing the epistemology of teacher education. Tep, 22(4), 488.