Uncovering the state of play of faculty professional development at Georgian universities

• In Event: The State of Education in Eurasia: experiences and challenges

Proposal

Along with the development of the higher education system, academics face the changing nature of the academic work, including the changing roles, responsibilities, and expectations towards them all over the world (Teicher, Arimoto &Cummings, 2013). During the last 30 years, the Georgian higher education system has been experiencing continuous waves of reforms aiming to modernize post-soviet system. Changing the Soviet system and making it compatible with the European higher education structure and Bologna process policies have drastically impacted the working environment and expectations towards Georgian academics (Tsotniashvili, 2021). These circumstances have created the urgency for the provision of faculty development opportunities to support them to cope with the new reality and, therefore, foster the changes in educational and research practices.
Nevertheless, while the higher education reforms in Georgia have been addressing the structural and system-level changes, faculty development has not yet been a reform priority supported by the relevant institutional or financial mechanisms. As a result, while the faculties struggled with navigating the new Western system and performing their responsibilities required by new standards and regulations, the education reforms were criticized for focusing merely on formal changes and having a minor effect on a qualitative academic transformation. Therefore, despite continuous higher education reforms, even after three decades from the breakdown of the Soviet Union, HEIs still suffer from deteriorated practices inherited from Soviet times (Tsotniashvili, 2021).
Scholarly literature emphasizes that faculty development is the key for the academic and institutional transformation of universities that can foster institutional readiness and responsiveness to the changing demands and societal expectations (Austin & Sorcinelli, 2013; Smyth, 2003). According to Sorcinelli et al. (2006), faculty professional development can play a transformative role in higher education through facilitating the achievement of individual professional development goals of faculty members and attainment of academic and organizational goals of the HEI.
The study aims to explore the state of play of faculty professional development at public higher education institutions (HEIs) in Georgia in relation to HEIs’ academic and organizational goals and the professional development goals of the faculty members. The study also examines the types, structures, and institutional approaches of faculty professional development and their effectiveness. Thus, it intends to respond to the following research questions:
• What are the faculty professional development practices, structures, and institutional approaches at Georgian public HEIs?
• How are the existing faculty professional development approaches, goals of the HEIs, and professional development needs of the academic staff aligned?
The study utilizes mixed research methods incorporating quantitative and qualitative data. To explore the practices of faculty professional development and the institutional approaches employed by the public HEIs in Georgia, content analysis of the staff management policies and strategic development plans has been conducted. Additionally, the HEI leaders were inquired about the faculty professional development practices, their relevance to the academic and organizational goals of the HEIs, and challenges of the existing faculty professional development approaches. 10 out of the 19 public higher education institutions participated in the study.
A survey was designed to study the professional development goals, experiences, and attitudes of the academic staff regarding the existing faculty professional development approaches and their effectiveness. The survey also explored the challenges of the professional development practices from the faculty perspective. 380 faculty members from 10 public HEIs participated in the survey.
The data analysis compares the professional development practices and institutional approaches at the different types (research university, teaching university) and locations (located in the capital city or in the regions) of HEIs. The analysis also takes into account the rank of academic position of academic staff. The study also compares and contrasts the perspectives of HEI leaders and academic staff regarding the faculty professional development goals, practices, and challenges.
The findings of the study elucidate fragmented implementation of faculty professional development at Georgian HEIs. None of the HEIs participating in the study have a central structure or person leading the faculty professional development activities; thus, the institutions lack a holistic view of the existing practices and their potential improvement.
The surveys revealed a broad spectrum of professional development activities available for academic staff, including workshops, training, international mobility of academic staff, participation in the conferences, provision of English language courses, funding research projects, sabbatical leave. Nevertheless, the offerings of each type of activity are still limited, especially at the regional teaching universities and universities with an artistic profile. The training and workshops related to teaching and learning matters have the highest participation rate. While the HEI leadership predominantly views the faculty professional development as a means for instructional development, academic staff has been underlining the need for enhancing their research competencies and scholarly performance.
The scattered implementation, lack of relevance and diversity of FPD hinder the establishment of transformative and collegial culture and responsiveness to individual professional development needs of faculty members. Consequently, the study suggests that the HEI leaders should reimagine the faculty professional development as a strategic priority. Furthermore, the study invites the HEIs to take a more holistic approach by mapping the professional development activities with its institutional and academic goals and individual professional development goals of the faculty members.

Author

• Keti Tsotniashvili, Arizona State University