Role conflict has become an unavoidable part of academic life. The more complex the requirements for academic staff become, the more roles emerge – which are often difficult to reconcile. People find themselves at a crossroads of obligations and responsibilities.

To draw attention to role conflicts and to focus it on recognising and resolving them, Birgy Lorenz and Aive Pevkur take three cases as examples: a golden-statuette professor; a scientist on the end of a fork; and a programme manager on a hot tin roof.

---

Case 1: A university researcher, traditionally judged on the basis of their research and teaching skills, finds themselves in a situation where they have to carry out an enormous range of tasks in addition to their core responsibilities. These range from administrative duties and work on boards to the psychological counselling of students and the drafting of funding projects.

Aive Pevkur: What makes working at a university so fulfilling but also at times so arduous is that if you’re pro-active, there are opportunities to apply yourself in all sorts of areas. As the saying goes: the more you do, the more you can do. If you lack the ability to say no, the mechanisms that are supposed to keep your workload at a reasonable level in an organisation will prove weak in a university.

But there’s more to it than that. If you look at the academic assessment matrix, you need to perform very well in all six categories to move up the career ladder. And so you get one and the same person leading a research group, conducting research, penning articles, reviewing papers, attending conferences, drawing up projects, applying for funding, teaching, mentoring, advising, supporting and contributing to university and nationwide working groups. Somewhere in amongst all that, there’s meant to be their friends and family and free time as well. How many of us recognise ourselves in that description? In any case, the more roles a person has, the greater the chance that they’ll come into conflict at some point.

Birgy Lorenz: Multiplicity of roles and multitasking bring with them a number of new-era problems. One of the biggest is a lack of time, which has a direct impact on researchers’ ability to get involved in longer-term research projects. On top of that, role conflict can lead to stress and job dissatisfaction, which in turn can undermine the quality and effectiveness of people’s work. That causes tension within the employee themselves and in their relationships with their students and colleagues.

Aive Pevkur: Another concern is the blending and blurring of roles. There are often situations where you have to set goals in one role but end up fulfilling them in another, or where the challenge is the additional responsibility of evaluating research projects for different projects, but they already involve all of the researchers in the field, all of whom are perfectly capable of assessing them.

Birgy Lorenz: On the one hand, it’s up to the individual to decide. After all, we’re free to do – or not do – whatever we want. We each determine what we do and how we do it, how successful our careers are and what that success looks like. For one person it’s 10 articles in leading journals; for another it’s good relationships with colleagues; for someone else it’s 27 grandchildren; and for someone else again it’s a really well-to-do university. I’ve noticed that more and more people in their 40s, which is to say people in their prime, are starting to cut back on work because family and personal time are more important to them. Aren’t they entitled to want that?

Aive Pevkur: That’s a conflict of conflicting expectations, where success at work often comes at the expense of your family life or hobbies. If it isn’t addressed at the organisational level, young people won’t come to work at universities, because why would they want that kind of life? If young researchers lack a support system, they can very easily burn out.

Birgy Lorenz: It’s much better to be super-successful at some things and perfectly average at others. A burnt-out person is of no use to anyone.

---

Case 2: A researcher is a member of a committee which assesses projects that may involve them or members of their organisation. It can then be all too easy to make biased decisions that ensure the success of certain projects and stable funding for their colleagues.

Birgy Lorenz: This is where things can get a bit ‘old pals act’ and whatever the opposite of being spoilt for choice is, right?

Aive Pevkur: It’s a classic conflict-of-interest situation. They often arise in countries with a small scientific community where it’s difficult to find impartial evaluators who aren’t linked to a project. Biased assessments don’t necessarily have any malign intent. On the contrary: they want the best for their colleagues, but tend to lose sight of the objective goals of science.

Birgy Lorenz: People often find themselves in situations too where the only solution is to step back, to recuse yourself. But at the end of the day, even if you’re doing it because of your values, you’re pulling your faculty or university out of the process as well, which isn’t really in its interests. So what can you do?

Aive Pevkur: In such cases you have to start by reviewing the procedures for evaluation and the selection of evaluators so as to ensure a fair and equitable outcome. Basically, people shouldn’t be put in a position where they have to make a call about themselves or someone close to them.

But that’s easier said than done. Rules, procedures and measures have all been developed at the international level, by people from big countries. Rules to avoid conflicts of interest are designed for situations where applicants and assessors can be kept separate, putting personal or organisational interests to one side. The smaller the country – like Estonia, where everyone knows everyone else in their field – the more responsibility the researchers assessing a project or application shoulder. Names can be kept off an application, but the area of research or research question alone can be enough to sway things if you already know the research group or the person behind the application. How objective can an assessor remain in such a situation?

However, the more that conflicts of interest are discussed within the scientific community or within a university, the greater the hope of fairer assessments and better science.

---

Case 3: The head of a programme receives feedback that students are unhappy with one of their lecturers. Said lecturer and researcher is in charge of that field of studies overall and is also the line manager of the head of programme. As such, the head of the programme ignores the feedback.

Aive Pevkur: How important do you feel feedback is from your years of experience, Birgy? Now that you’re the Vice-Dean of Bachelor’s Studies, what priorities have you set for yourself? How do we ensure fair treatment for all?

Birgy Lorenz: Good questions. You’ve immediately put me in conflict with myself about who we stand up for at the university! Our staff are in it for the long haul, and every researcher is an asset in their own right, but it’s the students who put bread on the table for us. I guess you have to try and do things in a way that works for everyone.

Generally speaking, rumour-mongering isn’t a thing at the university: if someone has a specific concern, they normally have concrete evidence to back it up. The head of the programme, in receiving feedback, gets to decide whether a situation warrants intervention. If they feel it doesn’t, they have to explain why to the students.

There’s no way you could take a head of programme seriously if they justified their inaction by saying they can’t or dare not tell their ‘superior’ or a ‘research fellow’ they need help in their teaching role. But we can’t be the best at everything we do. In some things we’re only average at, we may well need others’ help. So if the head of a programme feels that said colleague really does need help with their teaching, it’s their responsibility to say so.

Feedback is the key to change in a university. Students share their experiences and expectations, giving their lecturers pointers on how to provide them with a better learning experience. That requires the lecturers to be attentive and willing to intervene while upholding academic values. In turn, students are expected to demonstrate their own commitment and responsibility. Working together, we create the sort of education that speaks to people and develops them.

Proactive lecturers can help themselves, pinpoint areas of concern. For researchers who also teach, the challenge that lecturing presents could be an interesting experience, giving them the chance to be part of the change and see the results for themselves. For instance, I always recommend asking for feedback twice during a course and once more at the end of it so as to improve the learning experience for the students. The issues that are raised help you resolve situations, or in computer terms, to reset.

However, the university has to take action if rules are flouted, whether it’s a breach of ethical standards or agreements or a case of discrimination. Help’s available in every faculty. Didactics centres offer support on teaching issues, with student representatives, counsellors and tutors ready to give advice. With complex issues, vice-deans of studies come to the rescue, ensuring that suitable solutions are found for everyone. The overall goal is to strive for an environment conducive to academic learning.

Aive Pevkur: A university’s a challenging place to work, as it requires you to fulfil lots of roles if you want to make a success of yourself. At the same time, it’s a really inspiring environment to work in, as it allows you to work in very different roles. If people are aware of their roles and situations where they might come into conflict – and if the university is aware of typical role conflicts and conflicts of interest and knows how to manage and mitigate them – there’s a lot more satisfaction.

Enjoy your work!