The outlines on University Faculty professionalization: Klaipeda University case
 
More details
Hide details
1
Klaipėda University Continuing Studies Institute
Publication date: 2018-06-30
 
JoMS 2013;19(4):11–54
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
This paper analyzes the professionalization of University faculty, Klaipėda University faculty approach on their activities (structure) within the context of the development of professionalism. According to foreign countries researches, the majority of University faculty characteristic activities were determined and analyzed: educational activity, research, supervision of MD and PhD students’ research work, services rendered at the university and outside, also professional development. Attention is drawn to the fact that the multi-dimensional structure of University faculty activities implies their new professionalism / professionalization needs. Therefore, there is a need to scan University faculty professional development opportunities. This article aims on the basis of theoretical and empirical study insights in different countries to analyze Klaipėda University faculty operational structure, linking it to the professional development needs. The other objective of this article is to encourage research and the detailed academic discussions on today‘s University faculty performance structure, transformations, the opportunities of activities mutual harmony, professionalism, professionalization development and so on. The article consists of two parts: the first part - University facul14 | WSGE ty activity structure in the contexr of professionalization, the second part – the opportunities for the improvement of the University faculty professionalism.. The first part of the article analyzes foreign countries and Klaipėda University carried out faculty activity structure (activity fields) studies. They provide information that the various universities abroad manifest similar tendencies: the university faculty activities are rather qualitative than quantitative nature transformations. The faculty‘s organizational structure consists of the following fields of activity: educational activities, research, supervision of MD and PhD students’ research work, services provided at the University and outside the University, and professional development. After the study at the Klaipėda University, it was alleged that some faculty activities are considered priority (for example, research), and the other are given inferior attention. It is therefore problematic to speak of a professional university faculty professionalization in the holistic sense of professionalism/professionalization. Apart from the fact that the majority of Lithuanian university faculty is self-educated in the sense of high school didactic. However, the real state of university faculty professionalism and professionalization can only be provided by a more detailed research. The second part provides the University faculty’s professional development guidelines on the aspect of activities areas and on typical operations situations aspects. This section also highlights the fact that the faculty professionalization gaps can be reduced or eliminated after the creation of the University Professionalization center providing services for the newly recruited and the existing faculty. Conclusions are drawn on the basis of theoretical and empirical insights.
 
REFERENCES (36)
1.
Barnett R. (1992). Linking teaching and research. Journal of Higher Education,.63 (6), 619-636.
 
2.
Bertrand D. (1991). Le travail professoral démystifié, Québec: Presses de. l‘Université du Québec.
 
3.
Bertrand D. (1993). Le travail professoral reconstruit. Au-delà de la modulation, Québec, Presses de l‘Université du Québec.
 
4.
Bertrand D., Foucher R. (2003). Les transformations du travail des professeurs des universités québéquoises : tendences fondamentales et développements souhaités. Revues des sciences de l’éducation. Vol. XXIX, no 2, (2003), p. 353-374.
 
5.
Bess J. (1982). University Organization. A Matrix Analysis of the Academic Professions, New-York, Human Science Press.
 
6.
Bourdieu P. (1997). Les usages sociaux de la science. Pour une sociologie clinique du champ scientifique. Paris : INRA.
 
7.
Bourgeois E. (1990). University Politics: Adult Education in a Belgian University, PhD thesis, University of Chicago:Chicago.
 
8.
Bourque-Viens A., Nikolas J. (2007). Learning, training and quality assessment: the necessary triad for development, implementation and validation of skills in new researchers, Colloque des 3 conseils, Ottawa.
 
9.
Charlier B. (2011). Tensions between Professional and organizational development: Towards meaningful evaluative practices for all . In TrowlerPaul R., Saunders Murray & Bamber Veronica (dir.). Reconceptualising Evaluation In Higher Education:The Practice Turn. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
 
10.
Clark B. R. (1987) . The Academic Life, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
 
11.
Combes P.P., Linnemer L., Visser M. (2008). Publish or peer-rich? The role of skills and networks in hiring economics professors , Labour Economics, 15, 3, 423-441.
 
12.
Dansereau J., Prégent R., Perron P. (2010). Enquête sur l’encadrement des étudiants aux cycles supérieurs. Université de Montréal.
 
13.
Durkheim E. (1999). L‘ évolution pédagogique en Françe. Paris: PUF ENQA. (2005). Références et lignes directrices pour le management de la qualité dans l’espace européen de l‘enseignement supérieur. Helsinki: European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA).
 
14.
Evetts J. (2003). The sociology of professional groups: new questions and different explanations in Knowledge, Work and Society, no 1, p. 33-55.
 
15.
Fanghanel J., Trowler P.R. (2007). New Academic Identities for a New Profession? Situating the Teaching Dimension of the Academic Role in a Competotive Enchancement Context. In RESUP (2007). Les Universités et leurs marches. Paris 1-3 février (2007).
 
16.
Fave-Bonnet M.E. (1992). L’opinion des enseignants-chercheurs sur leurprofession. Savoir, éducation, fomation. No.2, p. 161-170.
 
17.
Finkelstein M. (1982). The American Academic Profession. A Synthesis of Social Scientific Inquiry Since World War II, Ohio State University.
 
18.
Godechot O., Louvet A. (2008). Le localisme universitaire : pour une régulation administrative : Réponses à Olivier Bouba-Olga, Michel Grossetti et Anne Lavigne », La vie des idées, [prieiga internete: http://wwwlaviedesidees.fr/ žiūrėta, (2012)-06-16].
 
19.
Godechot O., Mariot N. (2004). Les deux formes du capital social. Structure relationnelle des jurys de thèse et recrutement en science politique , Revue française de sociologie, 45, 2, 243-282.
 
20.
Guyot J.L., Bonami M. (2000). Mode de structuration du travail professoral et logiques disciplinaires à l’université. Cahier de recherche, No. 9, Université de Louvain.
 
21.
Hénard F. (2010). Learning Our Lesson: Review of Quality Teaching in Higher Education. Paris : OCDE, 113 p. ISBN 9789264079274.
 
22.
Horta H., Veloso F., Grediaga R. (2007). Navel gazing: academic inbreedingand scientific productivity. Working paper.
 
23.
Jatkauskienė B. (2013). Andragogų profesionalizacijos sistemos profesionaliraiška. Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla.
 
24.
Jatkauskienė B., Andriekienė R.M. (2013). Universiteto dėstytojų veiklosdaugiafunkcionalumas profesionalizacijos kontekste. Klaipėdos universitetoatvejis. Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla.
 
25.
Jourde P. (2003). Ce qui tue l‘Université française. Le Monde diplomatique, septembre, p. 4-5.
 
26.
Knight P. T., Tait J., Yorke M. (2006). The professional learning of teachers in higher education . Studies in Higher Education, vol. 31, n° 3, p. 319-.
 
27.
Le Boterf G. (2010). Construire les compétences individuelees et collectives Paris:Eyrolles.
 
28.
Le Boterf G. (2012). Premiers éléments du dispositif de développement du professionnalisme des enseignants de l‘Université de Klaipėda. Note de synthèse de la réunion du groupe de travail réuni le 27 juin (2012).
 
29.
Musselin C. (2008). Les Universitaires. Paris : La Découverte.
 
30.
Rastauskienė G.J., Kardelis K, Šečilienės I.M. (2009). Universiteto dėstytojo profesinio tapsmo ypatumai. Jaunųjų mokslininkų darbai. Nr. 1(22). (2009) ISSN 1648-8776.
 
31.
Rob G. (2004). A framework for evaluating the doctoral curriculum. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education /James Cook University:Australia, vol. 29, no 3, (2004), 299-309.
 
32.
Robitaille J.P. (2010). La relève en sciences et technologies au Québec : unétat des lieux, rapport soumis à l’Association francophone pour le savoir (Acfas), Observatoire des sciences et des technologies, 56 p.
 
33.
Romainville M., Rege C. N. (dir.) (2006). La pratique enseignante en mutationà l’université. Bruxelles : De Boeck.
 
34.
Sharp J. A., Peters J., Howard K. (2002). The management of a student re-search project, Burlington, VT, USA: Gower Publishing Company.
 
35.
Sunny M., Hicks H. (2007). Professional Development needs of graduatestudents: Comparing and contrasting perspectives, Université Dalhousie.
 
36.
Whitley R. (1984). The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, Oxford.
 
eISSN:2391-789X
ISSN:1734-2031