Introduction

The university organisation is changing as the work and staff structure transforms. Increasing technologisation, requirements of accountability and national and international competition for research funding, researchers and students are some of the many drivers behind the long-term change (Berman & Pitman, 2010; Ryttberg & Geschwind, 2017). A profound and reasoned rearrangement of the university system is necessary to meet the challenges coming from outside and, above all, to correspond to the changes inside (Baltaru & Soysal, 2018). As personnel is the most important resource and asset of universities, identifying the composition of the workforce is essential for a holistic comprehension and development of the university organisation. Furthermore, organisational change can be examined through changes in the structure of the personnel (Gornitzka & Larsen, 2004; Stage & Aagaard, 2019).

University staff have traditionally been divided into two groups: academics, who work on core functions, and technically named ‘non-academics’, often referred to as administrators and nowadays as professional staff, who carry out the rest of the duties. The literature indicates that this division is oversimplified at present, but it nevertheless reflects the reality of how university personnel are formally categorised at a national level and by the universities themselves (e.g. Szekeres, 2011; Whitchurch, 2010). The professional staff are a highly heterogeneous group representing all personnel who support the university endeavour in roles outside the classification of academics (Gornitzka & Larsen, 2004). The growing proportion of professional staff, changes in personnel structure and the emergence of highly qualified professionals, as well as the features and concepts associated with this new group, have been topics of scholarly discussion in recent decades (e.g. Macfarlane, 2011; Ryttberg & Geschwind, 2017; Schneijderberg & Merkator, 2013; Whitchurch, 2008). Professional identity and hybridity in roles have been increasingly studied from both academic and professional staff perspectives (e.g. McIntosh & Nutt, 2022; Siekkinen et al., 2020; Veles, 2022), but very little research has been done on the quantitative background of highly skilled professionals. Recently, a few statistical empirical case studies have been carried out in different contexts with the partial objective to define highly skilled staff working within the administration of universities (e.g. Croucher & Woelert, 2021; Löfgren et al., 2022; Stage & Aagaard, 2019), but the characterisation of the group has not been thoroughly transparent and systematic.

Therefore, this article aims to complement international research and highlight the characteristics of highly skilled professionals on the basis of comprehensive data by systematically and reproducibly delineating the group in the Finnish context. Additionally, changes in the professional staff are examined. In line with previous studies, significant changes in the number and internal structure of professional staff are assumed to have occurred, such as higher levels of education and more demanding roles. It is also presumed that a particular group of highly skilled professionals has emerged with special characteristics in terms of their tasks and level of professionalism. This study aims to answer the following questions: (1) How has the professional staff composition changed in Finnish universities? (2) What are the characteristics of highly skilled professionals in Finnish universities?

By providing a new perspective and approach to delineating highly skilled professionals and presenting a more in-depth analysis of changes in professional staffing in Finnish universities and drawing on previously unpublished data, this single-shot case study is partly a response to Clark’s (2006) call for case study narratives to be produced across countries to generate and confirm common concepts and comprehend change in universities worldwide.

Contextual background on Finnish university personnel

Universities in Finland have roots in the Humboldtian tradition to the extent that the freedom of science and higher education is guaranteed in the constitution. Higher education is also perceived as a public good according to the Nordic welfare model, although the Finnish higher education system has followed global trends and turned increasingly entrepreneurial over recent decades as neoliberal higher education policies and new governance practices have been adopted (Ylijoki, 2014). Finnish universities, although having an autonomous status under law, used to be part of the state administration and subject to its budgetary control. Since the early 2000s, autonomy was increased using steering instruments such as performance-based funding, quality assurance measures and a new salary system based on job requirements and individual performance (Rinne & Jauhiainen, 2012).

These developments of the higher education field were reinforced by completely new legislation, including the Universities Act (558/2009), and structural development acts and policies. Universities became independent legal and economic public-law bodies having a strong administrative and financial autonomy, even if they remain financially dependent on the government as the main source of funds. The change in the university’s legal status also meant a change in the status of its personnel, who were previously employees of the state and mainly public officials (Aarrevaara et al., 2009). The personnel structure consolidated by the law remained unchanged, with staff divided into two categories, ‘teaching and research staff’ and ‘other staff’, the latter divided into six subcategories in the national statistics and university personnel systems. The new law made universities operate as employers who began to enact their own human resources management policies. Space for more diverse roles and professionals began to emerge, which is currently reflected in university staffing structures in Finland and follows trends in several European countries, Australia and the USA (Siekkinen et al., 2020).

The implemented reforms have brought large-scale organisational, management and leadership changes to the internal life of universities, which have affected the academic profession and identities, generating a wealth of research on the topic (Hansen et al., 2019; Kallio et al., 2016; Siekkinen et al., 2020; Tapanila et al., 2020; Ylijoki & Ursin, 2013). The research in the Finnish context has focused on changes in the university organisation from the academic perspective, but some studies also include data of professional staff (e.g. Jauhiainen et al., 2015; Rinne & Jauhiainen, 2012), as do some international surveys (e.g. Aarrevaara & Dobson, 2016). However, more in-depth analysis of professional staff in Finnish universities, especially highly educated and competent staff, has not been the focus of researchers to date.

Highly skilled professionals

The higher education field has changed worldwide in recent decades due to transformation of the circumstances and needs of the surrounding society. To meet the challenge, universities have gone through neoliberal reforms and adjusted their management, staffing and organisational structure with guiding principles derived from new public management (NPM) and from managerialism (Stage & Aagaard, 2019; Teichler, 2003). Traditional core functions of universities—knowledge creation by research and knowledge dissemination by educating—have recently been complemented by services to the surrounding society, known as the ‘third mission’, which includes fulfilling the needs of various stakeholders, and a role in supporting economic development and impacting on society (Ćulum et al., 2013). To comply with all the demands and seize the opportunities coming from within and outside the university, new categories of highly qualified administrative staff have been recruited (Schneijderberg & Merkator, 2013).

These new professionals are now a subject of international research, unlike in the past when they were a by-product of research focusing on the transformation of the academic profession (Gornitzka & Larsen, 2004). In the scholarly discussion, this variously named occupational group working in different contexts has been examined through the concepts of professionalism and functional space. Professionalisation of university personnel is seen as both a cause and a result of changes in universities as organisations and working communities (Berman & Pitman, 2010; Kehm, 2015). According to Macfarlane (2011), academic practice has been disaggregating, leading to the emergence of para-academics, which includes the ‘de-skilling’ of academic staff and the diminishing of the academic ‘all-rounder’ role, and the ‘upskilling’ of professional support staff. The move into spaces and roles formerly reserved for academics reshapes the identity of professional staff and causes an ongoing relocation of professionalism from academics to administrators (Kolsaker, 2014; Ryttberg & Geschwind, 2017; Whitchurch, 2008). Professionalisation of support staff means that traditional ‘civil service’-type roles have been joined by roles requiring novel expertise and skills and that new specialisations have been created and some new functions have become activities of their own accord (Whitchurch, 2004). The educational level of professional staff has risen in most countries, with highly skilled staff holding university degrees and many having professional roles involving a combination of managerial and support tasks (Kehm, 2015). The emergence of new skills, roles and identities are characteristics of professionalisation (Gornitzka & Larsen, 2004; Schneijderberg & Merkator, 2013.) Furthermore, professional staff are navigating with their reconstructed identities between fluid professional and academic roles, crossing increasingly blurred boundaries and, as a result, shaping their own perceptions and definitions of professionalism (McIntosh & Nutt, 2022; Veles & Carter, 2016; Veles, 2022).

Another concept strongly related with highly qualified professionals is the specific functional space. These professionals operate beyond the traditional staff dichotomy, as performance requirements and accountability demand permeability between the two spaces (Kolsaker, 2014; Löfgren et al., 2022). In Whitchurch’s (2008, 2010) construct, there is a ‘third space’, where non-academic and academic activities have interlinked leading to hybrid forms of staff with different backgrounds, and these academics or professionals are working mainly on collaborative projects in the public and private domains. Schneijderberg and Merkator (2013) have introduced a bipolar overlap model to describe hybrid professional roles where the functions and tasks of higher education professionals (HEPROs) are located between the academic and administrative poles. An additional approach to the space is an overlapping area, where the work of administrative staff resembles that of academic staff as the main output of work connects to core academic functions and missions (Kivistö & Pekkola, 2017). This area includes higher education professionals, but also academics specialising in the areas of administration (para-academics). In contrast to studies on para-academics and third space professionals, the research on the changing staff structure of universities (Croucher & Woelert, 2021; Gornitzka & Larsen, 2004; Stage & Aagaard, 2019) considers the staff with hybrid roles consisting only of personnel on non-academic work contracts.

The concepts and theoretical constructs discussed above form a continuum and a solid basis for the study of highly skilled professionals, albeit the occupational group and the definition of the functional space included in the construct varies depending on the scholar’s approach. Furthermore, some of the related dimensions are not easily measurable, such as complex and evolving identity and abstract third space. Thus, a systematic and statistical data-based analysis requires some delimitations and choices, which are made in the following section.

An analytical framework for the study of highly skilled professionals

To identify and study highly skilled professionals in a systematic way in Finnish universities, an analytical framework is built on the presented research continuum (Table 1). Following Schneijderberg and Merkator (2013) and drawing on the concept in the above literature, an appropriate way to describe highly skilled professionals is to look at the level of professionalism through measurable dimensions such as educational level, tasks, positions, roles and responsibilities, and at the substance area, which is derived from the above discussed concept of functional space. This consists of the overlap with traditional administrative and academic spheres and the work output relating to academic core functions. In this study, the core functions are interpreted as teaching, research, administration/management and third mission activities. Of these, teaching and research are the obvious academic functions, but nearly all academics also have some administrative and managerial responsibilities, as decision-making in the university organisation is based on academics’ mostly temporary leadership roles (Gornitzka et al., 1998). Furthermore, the third mission involves both academics and highly skilled professionals, so the tasks in this area can also be seen as a dimension to further outline and describe the specific professional group.

Table 1 Analytical framework for study of highly skilled professionals: Elements, dimensions and indicators
Full size table

Rearranging the professional staff into subgroups and qualification levels is essential for analytical purposes. General technically oriented and niche staff, namely maintenance, information technology (IT) and library, are not included (Baltaru, 2019; Gornitzka & Larsen, 2004). Moreover, the highest professional positions in the lead of the organisation are not the focus of this study. Thus, various top-level director roles are excluded from the further analysis. Following the approaches used in the Norwegian, Danish and Australian contexts, this study uses personnel statistics to map the prevalence of a staff group and changes in a university organisation underlying it (Croucher & Woelert, 2021; Gornitzka & Larsen, 2004; Stage & Aagaard, 2019).

Data and methods

In the first part of the paper, synthesis and categorisation were drawn from the literature, leading to an analytical framework for the article. The following empirical part displays the trends in the staff composition of all thirteen Finnish universities steered by the Ministry of Education in 2010–2020, using official statistics from the national education administration’s reporting portal Vipunen database and from the preceding KOTA data collection. The latter data source was also used for staff numbers from the 1980s to 2020. In these sources, staff data are presented as full-time equivalents (FTE). Furthermore, changes in the administrative and teaching and research support staff were observed through changes in job titles before and after the new legislation (years 2001 and 2020). These data were drawn from the Official Statistics of Finland and from a custom-built dataset collected from all thirteen Finnish universities, based on categorisation according to the analytical framework. The dataset covered a total of 12,034 individuals who had been employed by a university during the year 2020. These data were registered at the level of the individual. Finally, in searching for the highly skilled professionals, this paper drew on the custom-built dataset and job requirement schemes defined in the general collective agreement for universities 2020–2022 (n.d.). The substance area outlining the group was indicated by the personnel group data, and the different dimensions of professionalism, such as formal qualifications, skills, expertise, tasks and positions, were demonstrated by respective indicator values.

The terminology used in the following section of the study is based on the official staff categories used in Finnish universities: teaching and research staff (TR staff) and other staff. The data includes only those contractually categorised as other staff. Other staff is further divided to six subgroups of administrative staff, teaching and research support staff (TR-support staff), IT staff, library staff, maintenance staff and the somewhat vaguely named subgroup ‘other’ for staff inappropriate to the previous categories. The indicator values for the dimensions listed in the framework and used in the data collection were (1) administrative or TR-support staff, (2) at least a master’s degree or equivalent, (3) a job requirement level 8–14 on the job requirement scheme for other staff or 3–7 on the scheme for TR staffFootnote 1 and (4) a job title.

From the dataset, the lowest level of education, lowest and highest levels of job requirements and director titles were excluded (Fig. 1). The final delimitation was based on the job title. After the delimitation, staff could be divided into highly skilled professionals, general administrative staff, general TR-support staff and directors.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Process for defining the group of highly skilled professionals and demarcation criteria

Full size image

Findings and discussion

Changes in the structure of professional staff in Finnish universities

The first research question aims to indicate how the professional staff composition has changed in Finnish universities. The assumption is that the numbers have evolved considerably. The change in the number of students and staff in Finnish universities over the last two decades has been relatively moderate. By 2020, the number of students in terms of FTE has fallen to 155,000, 5 per cent fewer than in 2001, while the number of university staff has increased by 5 per cent to 30,000. The increased number includes 18,000 TR staff, with a growth rate of 23 per cent, and 12,000 other staff, whose numbers have declined by 13 per cent. Figure 2 shows the change in the binary staff composition since the beginning of the decade. Over the last five years of measurement, the share of other staff has remained at around two-thirds of TR staff.Footnote 2

Fig. 2
figure 2

Binary staff composition across Finnish universities from 2001 to 2020. Left y-axis is for the solid black and solid grey lines, and right y-axis for the dashed grey line

Full size image

The spikes in the figure are mainly a result of individual universities’ different practices for recording the categories of staff; for example, corrections to the classification of research assistants as other staff are reflected in 2011 and 2017. However, the figure shows a generally downward trend in the number of other staff, which has started since the university reform in 2010. This recent development has followed a general trend in countries such as Germany, Norway and Denmark, where academics make up the majority of staff, unlike the exceptions of Australia and New Zealand (Croucher & Woelert, 2021; Löfgren et al., 2022; Stage, 2020). The shift can be explained by a substantial change in the funding structure and funding cuts following the recent reform of Finnish universities (Seuri & Vartiainen, 2018), leading to savings in staff numbers, especially other staff.

The second assumption is that the internal structure of other staff has evolved. Figure 3 shows the evolution of the number of these different subgroups of other staff after the university reform in terms of FTE. The shape of the curve showing changes in TR-support staff reflects the above-mentioned corrections to recording practices.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Other staff at Finnish universities 2010–2020

Full size image

Since 2010, the share of other staff has fallen by 9 per cent overall. Sizes of TR-support staff and IT staff have remained nearly unchanged, the group of administrative staff has slightly diminished, while the numbers of library staff and the staff under the label ‘other’ have decreased noticeably and the maintenance staff level has shrunk the most (61%). Although the overall number of administrative staff has decreased since 2010, this is the only category where there has been a clear upward trend since 2017.

The upward trend was also shown in the educational level, which is an important indicator when examining staff structure changes (Gornitzka & Larsen, 2004; Stage & Aagaard, 2019). Table 2 shows that the relative share of personnel with a higher education degree among other staff in Finnish universities has increased since the 2010s, although the absolute number of staff with bachelor’s or master’s degrees has grown moderately and the number of doctoral graduates has decreased slightly. The biggest drop is in the number of college graduates (post-secondary non-higher vocational education), which has fallen by 53 per cent of their previous prevalence.

Table 2 Other staff at Finnish universities according to educational level, 2010 and 2020
Full size table

Another indicator for examining change in the staff structure is job titles, which were used to analyse in more detail changes in the composition of other staff, and particularly of those occupied with administration and support for teaching and research. The code of occupational titles was already in use in 2001 when the organisation and staffing of universities were more traditional.Footnote 3 The classification of occupations has been elaborated in 2010, but nevertheless, the 2001 and 2020 titles are comparable in terms of nomenclature, especially when general titles are considered without a prefix defining the domain. The original data are in Finnish, and the English equivalent is based on translations most used in universities.

There was a noticeable difference in the frequency of occurrence: in 2001, clerical and technical auxiliary staff titles dominated, while in 2020, titles of qualified professionals have proportionally gained ground, as shown in Table 3. For example, in 2001, ‘secretary’ was the most used title, while in 2020, it ranks fifth, having fallen to a third of its previous prevalence. In 2001, the title ‘secretary’ is mainly used for clerical work, although some specialist level work was also carried out under the title. In 2020, secretaries do not have specialist roles as the term is reserved for lower job requirement levels. The title of ‘assistant’, on the other hand, covers a range of tasks from clerical to project work. A compound title ‘research assistant’ is used for auxiliary work having its Finnish counterpart as ‘research helper’ in the category of other staff.Footnote 4 The share of titles clearly related to areas of teaching and research in the top ten has declined slightly. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that ‘research assistants’ have been a relatively significant group of other staff in both years; it is a group that generally has a notable number of part-time and temporary contracts, which may contribute to the high absolute number of titles. In 2020, ‘specialist’ has moved into the top ten as a newcomer at number three, and the ‘coordinator’ title was used nearly five times more than before. Specialist is also translated as expert and the title often includes a prefix such as ‘HR’/ ‘education’/ ‘senior’/ ‘financial’/ ‘project’. According to the collective agreement, specialist roles contain, for example, investigation projects, planning or development duties or staff management. Although it might seem that the secretarial tasks have been transferred into specialist and coordinator positions, the organisational status of the post could not have been raised simply by changing the title.

Table 3 The ten most frequently used general job titles for other staff in the fields of administration and teaching and research support, number of persons in 2001 and in 2020
Full size table

The analysis answers the question of how the professional staff composition has changed in Finnish universities and shows that internal structure of other staff has evolved as three changes that have been widely observed internationally have also occurred in Finland (Croucher & Woelert, 2021; Gornitzka & Larsen, 2004; Stage, 2020; Stage & Aagaard, 2019). First, the decline in the number of maintenance or practical staff can be seen in the evolution of the composition of other staff since the 2010s. The drivers behind the change may be related to technical development, use of information technology (IT), digitalisation and the use of outsourcing in areas such as cleaning services. Second, the level of education has risen within the other staff. This may be partly explained by a reduction in the number of maintenance and auxiliary staff but also by an increase in the number of demanding jobs requiring higher education. The latter trend is reflected in the third change, namely a decrease in the relative share of clerical work in universities and an increase in highly professional and managerial roles. This development is shown by the changes in job titles over the last two decades, although it is not possible to define roles precisely based on titles, let alone identify their hybridity and fluidity in relation to other categories of staff (McIntosh & Nutt, 2022). However, the above changes depict the professionalisation of other staff in Finnish universities and the transformation of university work, with a decrease in traditional auxiliary staff and an increase in staff with new competences and high skills.

Highly skilled professionals in Finland

The above identified changes in the workforce direct to the second question: What are the characteristics of highly skilled professionals in Finnish universities? The analytical framework has been used to extract the group of highly skilled professionals from the dataset of 12,034 individual titles. In line with the element of substance area defined in the framework, data have been collected from the subcategories of administrative staff and TR-support staff. The group was also limited by level of professionalism to those with at least a master’s degree or equivalent and a job requirement level at least equivalent to the level of specialist defined in the collective agreement. A master’s degree was predominant in the group, while 15 per cent had a doctorate.

Roughly one-tenth of all university staff and around a quarter of the other staff can be considered highly skilled professionals in Finland. A substantial proportion, 34 per cent, of individuals among administrative and TR-support staff belonged to the highly skilled professionals in 2020, as shown in Fig. 4. Directors accounted for 2 per cent and general groups for 64 per cent. Almost all directors fell into the category of administrative staff. It is noteworthy that in the administrative staff group, the share of highly skilled professionals was more than half (53%), while in the TR-support staff group, the share was 11 per cent. The largest group of general TR-support staff included auxiliary roles, such as research or teaching assistant, laboratorian and trainee. The surprisingly small size of the highly skilled TR-support staff may be explained by the circumstance that people with qualifications apply directly for academic positions in this area of work. The role and delimitation of support work in relation to academic work have also become blurred (e.g. McIntosh & Nutt, 2022; Whitchurch, 2008), which can lead to universities recruiting these workers on academic contracts. Furthermore, researchers have traditionally managed their own projects, although this is currently changing with the rise of grant writer and project coordinator type tasks. However, the division between these two subcategories is not entirely consistent, as the administrative category clearly also includes highly skilled professional titles, which can be associated with research and teaching support roles based on the prefix such as ‘education’/ ‘study’/ ‘training’/ ‘research’/ ‘project’, implying the emergence of fluid professionals highlighted in recent studies (e.g. McIntosh & Nutt, 2022; Veles, 2022). The emergence of new types of university professionals in the Finnish university has been suggested before (Aarrevaara & Dobson, 2016), and the analysis carried out in this study confirmed this and leads to a crude identification of highly skilled professionals from universities’ other staff.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Highly skilled professionals and other groups among subcategories of administrative staff and teaching and research support staff (TR-support staff) at Finnish universities in 2020 (N)

Full size image

To further display the characteristics of the highly skilled professionals, job requirement levels and job titles were analysed (Table 4). Levels of the job requirement scheme defined in the general collective agreement for universities provide a general description of the knowledge, responsibilities and problem-solving, organisational and interpersonal skills required, in other words, a description of the level of professionalism. The data show that a basic level of specialist duties was prevailing in both categories of staff. On the administrative side, the term ‘head’, also translated as ‘manager’, was the most common title in the highest-level group, whereas ‘specialist’ was predominant in the middle-level group and ‘planning officer’ in the basic-level group. ‘Head’/ ‘manager’ was also the most common title in the small group on the highest-level of TR-support staff, while ‘laboratory engineers’ were most numerous in the middle-level and in the basic-level group. Although both staff categories included titles of ‘head’/ ‘manager’, ‘specialist’, ‘planning officer’ and ‘project coordinator’, each staff category also had titles that are strongly linked to its own substance area. Obviously, many of the job titles overlap.

Table 4 Finnish highly skilled professionals by job requirement level and frequently used specific titles in 2020
Full size table

The results highlight a high number of ‘head’/ ‘manager’ titles among highly skilled professionals, which is in line with the international discussion (e.g. Croucher & Woelert, 2021; Stage & Aagaard, 2019). The more informative compound titles on the administrative side reflect the different areas of university work: strategic development, human resources, finance, communication, legal and stakeholder issues, teaching and training and project work. On the TR-support side, titles related to medical and natural science research activities are strongly emphasised. This result may be explained by the fact that these fields are very research and research infrastructure intensive and by the reality that research in medicine, natural science or engineering is carried out in most of the universities. What cannot be seen in the job titles is the role of presenting official, where responsibility for and participation in decision-making processes is significant, and which is often included in the duties of highly skilled professionals. The above results are complemented by descriptions of job requirement levels, which include examples of responsibilities and tasks. Depending on the level, the work may involve, for example, applying specialised expertise or scientific methods, responsibility, assessment and development for operations, line management, supervisory and financial responsibilities, formulating strategic policies, decision-making and extensive interaction with stakeholders, as defined in the collective agreement. Although it is not possible to draw very far-reaching conclusions from the quantitative data based on a rough breakdown of staff categories, job titles and descriptions of the job requirement levels alone, the results give answers to the second research question and show that highly skilled professionals in Finland are a heterogeneous group, widely spread across different areas of university work, but with common characteristics, such as a uniform and high level of education and job requirements based on consistent definitions. They are mostly responsible for administrative, managerial, education-related and third mission functions among the core tasks, while research-related tasks are generally in the minority, as also shown in a study of German higher education professionals (Schneijderberg & Merkator, 2013).

Given the above-mentioned factors and the educational level of master’s or doctoral degree, it can be concluded that highly skilled professionals stand out for their specific tasks, roles and level of professionalism, all of which indicate a considerable potential to contribute to university endeavour. The results indicate that the evolution of the staff structure is not a mere promotion of clerical workers to administrative professionals, as the new tasks, responsibilities and competence of highly skilled professionals are clearly different in character and these employees work on new duties that were not previously regarded as part of the responsibilities of professional staff (Gornitzka & Larsen, 2004; Kehm, 2015; Ryttberg & Geschwind, 2017; Stage & Aagaard, 2019; Whitchurch, 2010). While the data and results of this study pre-date the large-scale impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, it is noteworthy that international studies show how these developments have amplified in the wake of the pandemic (e.g. Veles, 2022). Furthermore, the academic-other/non-academic division and terminology does not fit well with these professionals, nor does the conventional grouping of all professional staff into one homogenised category, as highly skilled professionals have a university degree and have jobs that are close to, or sometimes on a par with, academic work (Veles, 2022). Consequently, the perception of the university as an expert organisation expands with the emergence of highly skilled professionals. For the above reasons, the group has been referred to in this study as highly skilled professionals. In contrast to studies where perceptions of new professionals vary according to which university staff are included in these professionals (Macfarlane, 2011; Whitchurch, 2008), this study considers highly skilled professionals to be support staff of universities, like all personnel on work contracts of other staff. However, support should be understood as support for the whole university endeavour and not only as service for academic staff. Therefore, and especially in a post-pandemic university environment, the potential and contribution of highly skilled professionals should be recognised and collaborative structures and practices between staff groups need to be created and strengthened, rather than maintaining prevailing hierarchical service models (Schneijderberg & Merkator, 2013; Veles, 2022).

To conclude the analysis, Fig. 5 summarises an overview of the evolution of university staff in Finland at three time points over a 40-year period, with the new group of highly skilled professionals added to the latest 2020 graph. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the number of other staff was higher than the total number of TR staff, but at the turn of the millennium the ratio reversed. This result is in line with the previous studies on Danish and German university staff (Stage, 2020; Stage & Aagaard, 2019).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Staff composition of Finnish universities in full time equivalents, 1981, 2001 and 2020

Full size image

The figure illustrates the evolution of the relative size of the staff groups. The overall number of university staff has doubled between 1981 and 2001, while by 2020, the increase has been moderate, as discussed above. The personnel numbers of the last twenty years in Finland contradict the common narrative that other staff threaten to outnumber the academic staff. Furthermore, the results show that highly skilled professionals form a significant category within the professional staff and that they are a notable group within the whole workforce of the contemporary university.

The strength of this study can be seen in a systematic and reproducible delineation of the group of highly skilled professionals using an analytical framework derived from previous literature, and in a thorough in-depth analysis of national statistics and personnel databases provided by Finnish universities. Although the approach is similar to those used in other countries, the classifications differ in such a way that a detailed comparison is not possible (Croucher & Woelert, 2021; Gornitzka & Larsen, 2004; Löfgren et al., 2022; Stage & Aagaard, 2019). The approach seems adequate enough for locating the professionals of interest. However, the use of indicator values of the analytical framework is context-specific and needs to be adapted to the local reality and available data. Nonetheless, the indicators used in this study allowed a rough delineation of the group under study and brought forward general characteristics that may be of international interest.

The study’s strengths also include the use of comprehensive national register data from various sources and of the previously unpublished data from all thirteen Finnish universities. The data enabled fine-grained national-level analyses, and staff categorisation permitted clear insights into the share of subcategory roles. However, fully harmonised data were not available as there were some differences between universities in the classification of staff into personnel groups. Another limitation of the study is the explanatory power of job requirement level, which is a description, not an exhaustive list of requirements for a particular job, and which should be interpreted with caution. The data show that universities are, nevertheless, complying with the education levels related to the requirements levels, and the requirement levels attached to the titles have also been used in a largely harmonised way.

In addition, the definition and delineation used in the study can be subject to assessment. The definition of university work, and in particular academic work, affects the outlining of highly skilled professionals. The definition of academic work has not been unambiguous and is now inevitably changing as the new hybrid and flexible academic profession includes third mission functions and requirements of accountability (Pekkola et al., 2022). Thus, in this study, academic work is perceived in its broadest sense to include not only teaching and research but also university management/administration and the third mission (Ćulum et al., 2013). This interpretation broadens the view of which tasks and main outputs of the work of professional staff are connected to core academic functions and missions. In the light of a broader interpretation of academic work, criticism can be directed at the exclusion of niche staff, such as IT and library staff. Although IT and library are technically oriented fields, staff in both are beginning to have roles that strongly support academic work, which has become particularly apparent with the Covid-19 pandemic and the development of artificial intelligence (Macfarlane, 2011; McIntosh & Nutt, 2022).

Concluding remarks

This article contributes to the continuum of studies on the emergence of a staff group between the traditional academic and administrative spheres of university work and the changes in the staff structure that underlie this phenomenon (Croucher & Woelert, 2021; Gornitzka & Larsen, 2004; Stage & Aagaard, 2019). The study confirms previous findings on the evolving work and the new type of staff, but also shows that a systematic outlining of highly skilled professionals is possible on the dimensions indicated in the literature, and that such a workforce is verifiable. Based on the results, the paper reaches the aim and offers a more reasoned and detailed delineation of an interpretation of qualified university professionals in general and a new insight into the composition and characteristics of the university staff in Finland. A broader interpretation of university work and a narrower definition of the research subject bring a new perspective to the international debate. The data may also suggest that the idea of a university is changing.

The main findings of the study, based on various databases, are that both the absolute number and the proportion of professional staff relative to academics have decreased in recent decades and that the proportion of highly skilled staff in this group has increased relative to auxiliary staff in Finnish universities, which is in line with international studies. The main findings also include a well-founded delineation of the group of highly skilled professionals identifying their specialist-level skills, functions and roles and highlighting their significant professional potential. These findings are specific in their reliance on systematic and transparent delimitation of the study population and on extensive analysis of previously unpublished data from all Finnish universities. Despite their contextual nature, these results complement the international debate on the changing nature of university work and staff.

It is not possible to draw excessively broad conclusions on the highly skilled professionals from statistical data alone, nor to contribute to an important and timely debate on the fluidity of roles and identities within university staff and their impact on daily work and career development (e.g. McIntosh & Nutt, 2022; Veles, 2022). These, and the implementation and facilitation of cooperation between different staff groups, are relevant topics for further research on university staff, also in the Finnish context. However, this national case study highlights the importance of the chosen research approach. It contributes to the discussion on the changing realities of university work by also providing a backbone to the current debate based on qualitative research. This study can be seen as a justification and starting point for further research, as it has outlined and made visible the population of interest.

Indeed, detailed studies on this population and their contribution in the output of the university are required, as universities need to utilise the potential of all staff in an ever-changing global higher education environment, a point underlined by the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and expanding influence of artificial intelligence (Berman & Pitman, 2010; Veles, 2022). The change of work and accompanying emergence of highly skilled professionals have not yet been considered in the strategies for advancing the organisation of universities, nor has the full potential of these professionals realised yet. The results of this article, which provide a more accurate picture of current university work and staffing, may help to broaden the often-traditional view of the university held by leaders, developers and members of the academic profession and lead to a more optimal reorganisation of the university.