This article reports a mixed-methods study examining 29 academic middle leaders’ viewpoints on supporting educational change in higher educational institutions in Poland. Following a three-dimensional conceptual framework emphasizing support at the individual, collegial, and environmental levels, Q methodology was adopted to collect and analyze data qualitatively and quantitatively. Four significantly different viewpoints were identified, respectively prioritizing (1) creating an institutional culture, (2) connecting people to form a support system, (3) supporting educators’ change readiness, and (4) supporting trust building. The follow-up focus groups, in addition to verifying the Q outcomes, identified a shared conceptualization of middle leaders as complex dynamic adaptive systems, despite their general lack of professional training for their positions. The identified consensus emphasized their shared concerns about a lack of institutional support, which echoes the prevailing research findings on university educators. The results also reveal a particular need for attention to pedagogical advancement, which has been historically neglected due to socioeconomic constraints. This study suggests broadening the scope of change, including higher education institutions’ policymaking, practice, and research, to provide systemic and systematic support to actors.
AdiningrumTSBudionoTALappalainenH (2021) Students CAN be the center of their own learning”: Lessons learnt from a transnational collaborative academic development project. International Journal for Academic Development28(1): 45–58.
2.
Al SaidRSDuXAlkhatib HAH, et al. (2018) Math teachers' beliefs, practices, and belief change in implementing problem-based learning in Qatari primary governmental school. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 15(5): 1–14.
3.
AvolioB (2007) Promoting more integrated strategies for leadership theory-building. American Psychologist62(1): 25–33.
4.
BanasickS (2019) KADE: A desktop application for Q methodology. Journal of Open Source Software4(36): 1–4.
5.
BondMABlevinsSJ (2020) Using faculty professional development to foster organizational change: A social learning framework. TechTrends64(2): 229–237.
6.
BrownCMilitelloM (2016) Principal’s perceptions of effective professional development in schools. Journal of Educational Administration54(6): 703–726.
7.
BrownSR (1980) Political Subjectivity: Application of Q Methodology in Political Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
8.
BrownSR (2019) Subjectivity in the human sciences. Psychological Record69: 565–579.
9.
ButlerJ (2020) Learning to lead: A discussion of development programs for academic leadership capability in Australian universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management42(4): 424–437.
10.
CabreraDCabreraLPowersE (2015) A unifying theory of systems thinking with psychosocial applications. Systems Research and Behavioral Science32(5): 534–545.
11.
DakowskaD (2015) Between competition imperative and Europeanisation: The case of higher education reform in Poland. Higher Education69: 129–141.
12.
DoyleTBradyM (2018) Reframing the university as an emergent organisation: Implications for strategic management and leadership in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management40(4): 305–332.
13.
DuXGuerra ANørgaardB, et al (2022) University teachers’ change readiness to implement education for sustainable development through participation in a PBL-based PD program. Sustainability14(19): 12079.
14.
DuXNaji KKEbead U, et al (2021) Engineering instructors’ professional agency development and identity renegotiation through engaging in pedagogical change towards PBL. European Journal of Engineering Education46(1): 116–138.
15.
EnglundCOlofssonADPriceL (2018) The influence of sociocultural and structural contexts in academic change and development in higher education. Higher Education76(6): 1–19.
16.
EsenMBellibasMSGumusS (2020) The evolution of leadership research in higher education for two decades (1995-2014): A bibliometric and content analysis. International Journal of Leadership in Education23(3): 259–273.
17.
EvansL (2021) Is leadership a myth? A ‘new wave’ critical leadership-focused research agenda for recontouring the landscape of educational leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership50(3): 413–435.
18.
FloydA (2022) Departmental leadership in a post-pandemic world: Taking collective responsibility for our future success. In: ThomasMCStephenF (eds) Leadership and Management Strategies for Creating Agile Universities. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 16–28.
19.
GuerraANørgaard BDuX (2023) University educators’ professional learning in a PBL pedagogical development programme. Journal of Problem-Based Learning in Higher Education11(1): 36–59.
20.
GuerraANørgaardBDuX (2023) University educators’ professional learning in a PBL pedagogical development programme. Journal of Problem-Based Learning in Higher Education11(1): 36–59.
21.
HoltDTArmenakisAAFeildHS, et al (2007) Readiness for organizational change: The systematic development of a scale. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science43(2): 232–255.
22.
KálmánOTynjäläPSkaniakosT (2020) Patterns of university teachers’ approaches to teaching, professional development and perceived departmental cultures. Teaching in Higher Education25(5): 595–614.
23.
KobylińskaU (2022) Attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived control versus contextual factors influencing the entrepreneurial intentions of students from Poland. WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics19: 94–106.
24.
KwiekM (2014) Structural changes in the Polish higher education system (1990–2010): A synthetic view. European Journal of Higher Education4(3): 266–280.
25.
KwiekMSzadkowskiK (2018) Higher education systems and institutions, Poland. In: TeixeiraPNShinJC (eds) Encyclopedia of International Higher Education Systems and Institutions. Springer, 1–10.
26.
LalSLuceyADLindsay ED, et al (2020) Student perceptions of instruction sheets in face-to-face and remotely-operated engineering laboratory learning. European Journal of Engineering Education45(4): 491–515.
27.
LundbergAde LeeuwRAlianiR (2020) Using Q methodology: Sorting out subjectivity in educational research. Educational Research Review31: 100361.
28.
MaddockLC (2023) Academic middle leaders, middle leading and middle leadership of university learning and teaching: A systematic review of the higher education literature. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 45(4): 357–392.
Meek V L, Goedegebuure L, and De Boer H. (2010). The changing role of academic leadership in Australia and the Netherlands: Who is the modern dean?. In: Meek, V., Goedegebuure, L., Santiago, R., Carvalho, T. (eds) The Changing Dynamics of Higher Education Middle Management. 33: 31–54. Springer, Dordrecht.
31.
MuammarOMAlkathiriMS (2022) What really matters to faculty members attending professional development programs in higher education. International Journal for Academic Development27(3): 221–233.
32.
OstrowickaH (2022) Economization of discourse on education and pedagogization of economic problems: Media debate on higher education reform in Poland. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education43(1): 86–100.
33.
PorterBR (2021) Understanding the Subjective Perceptions of Higher Education Diversity Practitioners on Effective Leadership Practices for Transformational Campus Diversity Culture Change. The University of Memphis.
34.
RaffertyAEJimmiesonNLArmenakisAA (2013) Change readiness: A multilevel review. Journal of Management39(1): 110–135.
35.
SaroyanATrigwellK (2015) Higher education teachers’ professional learning: Process and outcome. Studies in Educational Evaluation46: 92–101.
36.
StrohDP (2015) Systems Thinking for Social Change: A Practical Guide to Solving Complex Problems, Avoiding Unintended Consequences, and Achieving Lasting Results. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.
37.
ThorntonK (2020) Thank goodness it isn’t just me—building a learning community for middle leaders. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management42(3): 316–331.
38.
Uhl-BienMMarionRMcKelveyB (2007) Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly18(4): 298–318.
39.
UrbanekP (2020) Reform of the higher education system in Poland from the perspective of agency theory. European Journal of Higher Education10(2): 130–146.
40.
VähäsantanenK (2015) Professional agency in the stream of change: Understanding educational change and teachers’ professional identities. Teaching and Teacher Education47: 1–12.
41.
Van SchalkwykS, et al. (2015) Reflections on professional learning: Choices, context and culture. Studies in Educational Evaluation46: 4–10.
WilcoxKCLawsonHA (2018) Teachers’ agency, efficacy, engagement, and emotional resilience during policy innovation implementation. Journal of Educational Change19(2): 181–204.
44.
WoodsC (2012) Exploring emotion in the higher education workplace: Capturing contrasting perspectives using Q methodology. Higher Education64(6): 891–909.
45.
YoungsH (2017) A critical exploration of collaborative and distributed leadership in higher education: Developing an alternative ontology through leadership-as-practice. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management39(2): 140–154.
46.
ZhouJDeneenD (2020) Sandwiched’ or ‘filtering’: Middle leaders’ agency in innovation enactment. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management42(3): 332–346.
