Academics must balance multiple roles, as well as various tasks contained within those roles. In the scholarly literature, the most common distinction is made between three, or in some cases four, main academic role categories – research, teaching, administration, and, more recently, third mission activities (Bentley & Kyvik, 2012). In assessments of the functions of universities in social systems, research and teaching roles have been considered the most significant (Höhle & Teichler, 2013). Various tasks related to the administrative role are typically seen as burdensome, and numerous efforts are made to minimize them (Ylijoki & Ursin, 2013). Due to the rising trend of marketization in higher education (HE) (Teixeira & Dill, 2011) and the growing recognition of universities as facilitators of economic growth (Uslu et al., 2019) and regional development (Benneworth et al., 2016), academics are also increasingly expected to play greater parts in their role as entrepreneurs (Marzocchi et al., 2019) and act as income generators, usually as part of the newly added university third mission. Finally, given increased pressure to be socially responsible (Pinheiro et al., 2015), academics are compelled to be active in a wide array of tasks that are external to their main university work but are considered beneficial to society. Such tasks are usually classified under societal engagement/service/dissemination and generally considered to be a non-profit part of the third mission (Compagnucci & Spigarelli, 2020). This evolution in academic roles and tasks has been recognized by scholars as an ongoing global process (Aarrevaara et al., 2021; Teichler et al., 2013).

While research-teaching-administration has been well established in the scientific community as a “realistic” representation of academic work, in recent years this notion has been challenged by two main streams of research. One group of scholars has begun critical discussions regarding whether there are really only three roles. The main argument of this group is that the existing triad is too rigid to capture the increasingly complex array of academic activities resulting from academic roles being unbundled (Gehrke & Kezar, 2015; Macfarlane, 2011; Neely & Tucker, 2010) into a myriad of specialized roles, including research and teaching-only positions, instructional designer roles, and various entrepreneurial roles (Coates & Kezar, 2022; Krause, 2009; Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006). Martin et al. (2018) argue that a possible explanation for this could be that previous studies have tended to focus on the atomistic experience of being an academic and the ways in which academics understand and prioritize pre-defined and separate elements of their work, thus re-producing this restricted view (p. 2374). Furthermore, the inclusion of the third mission in a university's portfolio of activities (B. R. Clark, 1998) only serves to exacerbate the already existing confusion. The third mission is predominantly perceived as a process of transforming research outcomes into commercial products, thereby augmenting the scope of applied research conducted within academic institutions (Schnurbus & Edvardsson, 2022). While some authors focus more on third mission “for-profit” elements, others include its “not-for-profit” activities, such as the dissemination of knowledge to the broader community and organizations, promotion of entrepreneurial skills, innovation, and the enhancement of social welfare, and the development of human capital (Compagnucci & Spigarelli, 2020). While this addition of a new mission to the university's two pre-existing activities (research and teaching) is quite well captured in the literature, there is still a lack of research on how this idea is translated into the daily work of academics (Knudsen et al., 2021). Moreover, given that evaluation and professional progression hinge primarily on scholarly achievements within the fields of research and teaching, involving academics in third mission endeavors is frequently considered unneeded or even bothersome as it obstructs customary academic pursuits (Huyghe & Knockaert, 2015).

On the other end of the spectrum, another stream of literature does not question academic roles per se, instead calling for their further integration. In addition to the classic Humboldtian value of integration between teaching and research (Colbeck, 1998), and given that administration already exists at the intersection of all academic activities, some scholars have called for a third mission to be integrated into both research and teaching in order for it to be better accepted within the academic community (Ćulum, 2015; Ćulum et al., 2013; Macfarlane, 2011; Reymert & Thune, 2022), and also to ensure synergies and long term sustainability of these roles (Pinheiro & Pulkkinen, 2023).

Considering academics’ claims of the increasing complexity of scholarly work, it is perhaps surprising that research on the new expectations towards academic roles and tasks, as well as the possible reshuffling of existing ones, has been relatively limited. Each academic role can be seen as a category comprised of one or several tasks, and each task as an activity that has organizational relevance. Therefore, when referring to academic work, most scholars (Borlaug et al., 2022; Clegg, 2008; Coates & Kezar, 2022; Henkel, 2005; Kolsaker, 2008; Poutanen, 2022; Whitchurch, 2012; Ylijoki & Ursin, 2013) tend to make use of already well-established role categories, without unpacking the complexity and expected activities that comprise these roles. In addition, pre-defined categories do not allow for additional, possibly novel, roles to come to the fore.

However, some research has been done to shed light on this topic in European, Anglo-Saxon, as well as Norwegian contexts. For example, Kyvik (2013) identified and analyzed six main tasks included in the academic researcher role in Norwegian academia, including networking, collaboration, doing, managing, publishing, and evaluating research. Brokjøb et al. (2022) also discussed the rationale behind applying for external research funding as part of the research role. In terms of the teaching role, Höhle and Teichler’s (2013) study outlines the following related ten tasks: classroom lecturing, individualized instruction, learning in projects/groups, practice instruction or laboratory work, ICT-based learning or computer-assisted learning, distance education, face-to-face interaction with students outside class, electronic communication (e-mail) with students, development of course material, and curriculum/program development. Finally, the third mission tends to be the most ambiguous, still requiring a broader and deeper scientific discourse for its elucidation. For instance, Ćulum et al.’s (2015; 2013) as well Schnurbus and Edvardsson (2022) studies revealed that various and sometimes completely different issues are discussed in the context of third mission, including technology transfer/innovation/commercial activities (which overlap with research), internal services (which overlap with management and administration), civic activities (which overlap with both research and teaching), and organized service functions (e.g., university hospitals, various projects with marginalized populations) for the welfare of the community (region).

The common problem with most of the existing studies, as noted by Rosewell and Ashwin (2018), is that the predominant approach for studying academic roles has largely relied on predefined role categories and tasks. In addition, focusing on a single point in time, existing research has not allowed for a better understanding of the changes in expectations towards academic roles and tasks over time. The aim of this paper is to fill this knowledge gap by examining stability and change in expectations towards academic roles. In approaching this problem, the paper raises the following two main questions:

How are academic roles defined and “ideal” employees depicted by universities themselves?

To gauge whether and how academic role expectations have changed, this article investigates how the roles and tasks of senior academics (professors and associate professors) have been framed in job advertisements over a period of twenty years (2000–2020) at ten public research universities in Norway. In addition to contributing to an increasingly vibrant literature on the reshaping of academic roles, and the use of marketing and branding tools in academic recruitment, this paper provides an understanding of role theory concepts related to changes in expectations in occupational roles. Throughout the following sections, the paper outlines the theoretical and conceptual positioning and provides an outline of Norwegian HE with special focus on the use of job advertisements in university branding and academic recruitment, followed by methods, data analysis, discussion, and conclusion sections.

The analysis of job advertisements reflecting role expectations and role change, needs to be understood in the context of the broader process of rationalization (Lee & Ramirez, 2023; Ramirez, 2006, 2010) and marketization efforts in HE (Avramović et al., 2021; Teixeira & Dill, 2011) as well as the increased contest for the best and the brightest, both staff and students. Job advertisements serve as a tool for higher education institutions to promote and differentiate themselves from their competitors. These documents are just one aspect of the branding activities employed by the HE sector, which have been borrowed from business organizations (Aula et al., 2015). In this increasingly competitive and resource strained university environment, the importance of proper branding (or in some cases re-branding) is rising (P. Clark et al., 2020). Brands have traditionally been considered “identifiers” that differentiate goods or services from those of competitors (Kuoppakangas et al., 2020).

Generally, there are two main views regarding the purpose of universities’ use of branding strategies and artefacts. One is rather optimistic and in line with the traditional definition, seeing branding as an instrument for improving the market position and reputation of HEIs by developing a competitive advantage based on a set of unique characteristics through clear and effective communication to “customers” (Wæraas & Solbakk, 2009). Branding also lends new meaning to long-standing academic categories. As Drori (2013) notes, branding brings market logic and managerialism to the university and heightens the sense of academic competition. In this way, the university is transformed into a “proper organization”. In addition, emphasis on branding is also accompanied by a redefinition of what a university does – there is emphasis on knowledge creation, teaching, and excellence in research. Finally, branding shifts the tone of the core aspects of academic work as excellence becomes a differentiation strategy rather than solely a professional duty (pp. 3-5).

The other view represents an opposite position, where branding in HE is used more as a symbol through which universities demonstrate their conformity to their institutional environments. In other words, it is more important to be similar than to differentiate. However, this is often done unintentionally. It is a paradox that branding, or what is meant to lead to differentiation, may in fact lead to a conformity that prevents organizations from expressing their unique features (e.g., by using buzzwords such as “world class”, “flagship”, “leading” etc. or by simply following the same strategies and using the same artefacts as others) (Kuoppakangas et al., 2020; Wæraas & Solbakk, 2009; Wille et al., 2020).

The use of job advertisements in studying academic role expectations, recruitment and branding is on the rise in recent years (see Lavigne & Sá (2021); Pitt & Mewburn (2016); Johnson & Zlotnik, (2005); and Pilcher et al., (2021). These documents represent one of the artefacts that universities increasingly use as part of branding communication, to promote and distinguish themselves from the other competitors in the hiring process of academics (Kheovichai, 2014; Thellefsen et al., 2006). Even though job advertisements are far from being the most efficient branding tool (Drori et al., 2013), they are important as a step in one’s academic journey towards a desired position, and the image they convey and the message they communicate set the tone for future steps in the recruitment (Orupabo & Mangset, 2022).

As a branding artifact (Thellefsen et al., 2006), a job advertisement is a readily available formal statement of a particular institution’s expectations concerning the roles and qualifications associated with a position. They serve as public signals for candidates and university members regarding what to expect from the role incumbent (Lavigne & Sá, 2021). An effective job advertisement is not only able to positively affect the perceived attractiveness of an organization through text and images, but it can also prevent jobseekers from actively searching for additional vacancies (Liu, 2020). As artifacts, job advertisements communicate certain qualities and values, and by applying to a vacant position, job seekers wish to become part of the community that shares these qualities and values (Delmestri et al., 2015). As such, job advertisements may serve not only to attract desirable candidates, but also to discourage those from applying who do not have the proper skills or do not share the same values as the hiring organization (Cooman & Pepermans, 2012).

In the literature, there are two main themes when it comes to the role of job advertisements in mediating the hiring process. The first one focuses on how much information should be displayed in these texts. One group of scholars favor more detailed documents, with abundant information, so that applicants can have a full understanding of what is expected and be encouraged to apply for the job (Ganesan et al., 2020). It is argued that job advertisements that are detailed and include job specifications and job descriptions would attract a more qualified applicant pool. Also, job advertisements that include information about salary, benefits, and information on why the job provider is the right place for someone to work for would achieve better results in attracting the best candidates (Muduli & Trivedi, 2020).

Liu (2020), on the other hand, argues that conclusions about effects of length of job advertisements on applicants are not clear and are mediated by the type of the job seeker. Thus, there are situations in which shorter and more concise job advertisements can achieve better results. Roberson, Collins and Oreg (2005) found that although more detailed advertisements enabled jobseekers to directly process the information and led to favorable perceptions regarding employee treatment, a job candidate’s contentment with the job-related information does not inevitably result in a heightened favorable impression of the job or the company, nor does it necessarily enhance their inclination to apply.

The other group of scholars is more interested in the way logos, type styles, nomenclature, architecture and interior design are used in job advertisements to convey the message of the university (Delmestri et al., 2015; Drori et al., 2013; Idris & Whitfield, 2014). For instance, Drori (2013) and Drori et al. (2016) argue that universities are increasingly infused with neoliberal themes of the market, and that these come to be encapsulated in the iconographic artefacts of universities that include logos, websites, architecture and other visual material.

Academic recruitment in Norway, and also worldwide, has undergone an evolution in the past two decades. In traditional academic recruitment, the scholars select their new colleague by evaluating research contributions according to the specific disciplinary culture (Van den Brink & Benschop, 2011). Other qualifications, including those related to teaching and administration, are considered important, but were always overshadowed by the relative weight of research expectations (Reymert, 2022). However, in recent years, universities worldwide are acting more strategically when it comes to recruiting new academics. The idea is to attract the best and the brightest scholars who can help universities achieve their organizational goals and successfully compete with other HEIs for funding and students. To do so, so-called talent management practices are being implemented (Minbaeva & Collings, 2013; Thunnissen et al., 2013). These are linked to New Public Management (NPM) reforms already underway in Norwegian academia but also globally (Bleiklie, 2023; Broucker & Wit, 2015), hoping to make public organizations more business-like (Paisey & Paisey, 2018; Van den Brink et al., 2013).

As part of these efforts, the process of recruiting academics in Norway has been elevated to a more sophisticated level. This involves the establishment of enhanced and more specialized university human resources (HR) departments, the implementation of candidate evaluation techniques that rely on performance (metrics), and an amplified involvement of managers in the recruitment of new faculty members. There is also a heightened focus on adhering to rules and guidelines, a pattern that has been observed in professorial recruitment elsewhere (Van den Brink et al., 2013). Such formalization of organizational procedures is moreover related to how universities have evolved as stronger organizational actors, which is a prerequisite for strategic positioning in more competitive environments (Krücken & Meier, 2006; Ramirez, 2006; Ramirez & Christensen, 2013). As Lee and Ramirez (2023) noticed, “getting organized” indicators are spreading globally, and suggest that there is globalization of organizational actorhood among universities, with some regional and local peculiarities being preserved. Similar developments have been observed in Norway, where HEIs are being influenced both by common (now globalized) rules of the game and the local organizational roots (Ramirez & Christensen, 2013).

According to the new methods of hiring academic staff, competent applicants are not necessarily the most seasoned individuals, but rather those who can align most effectively with the organization’s goals and enhance overall productivity. As universities face growing demands from their stakeholders, they also seek to employ academics who can successfully meet these diverse expectations (Minbaeva & Collings, 2013; Van den Brink et al., 2013). For instance, recent research has indicated that in order to be considered a desirable professorial candidate nowadays, one must have the capability to secure funding from external sources, fulfill the teaching requirements of their department, and seamlessly fit into the professional environment. Additionally, they must exhibit a level of research excellence that has always been a crucial aspect of academic recruitment (Paisey & Paisey, 2018; Ramirez, 2010; Ramirez & Tiplic, 2014). While teaching experience is also valuable, some scholars argue that this is true only in terms of covering specific organizational teaching needs and much less as an integral element of being an academic. Professors are thus primarily recruited as organizational assets (Levander et al., 2020; Levander & Riis, 2016; Reymert, 2022).

Recruitment processes at Norwegian universities are overseen by regulations set at both the national and the university levels. These include the Public Administration Act and Act relating to universities and university colleges as well as administrative law regulations such as Regulations concerning appointment and promotion to teaching and research posts and rules and guidelines at individual HEIs. Hiring procedures consist of lengthy sequences of actions, with decisions being made at various stages (Orupabo & Mangset, 2022; Reymert, 2021, 2022).

Initially, at the first stage, the job vacancies are publicly announced in compliance with national legislation (Orupabo & Mangset, 2022). The accepted practice in Norway when it comes to drafting job advertisements is that the university administration provides a template that is used with minor modifications for the hiring processes. In these templates, there are sections that are pre-defined and pre-written by administrators, as well as by the university marketing department, making sure legal and more technical requirements are in order, and the template is in line with university branding policy (appropriate images are used, logos, university colors, etc.). There are also blank sections relating to description of the position, roles and tasks, as well as expected previous experience and qualifications of candidates. These empty spaces are left for a specific department to fill in. Designing the text for the announcement is an important task that involves fulfilling the needs and strategies of the organization (Reymert, 2022). In addition, the preparation and design of job advertisements is considered by some scholars to be the most important phase because it provides the framework for decision-making in the following steps of recruitment. The responsibility of leading this process is normally given to the department heads, who often collaborate and negotiate with research group leaders and other academics. Some universities alternate between research groups when hiring new academics, while others do so by giving priority to the departmental needs as a whole (Orupabo & Mangset, 2022; Reymert, 2021).

Two major themes are discussed when job advertisements are crafted, and these connect directly to academic roles and tasks. One relates to defining the job seeker profile. Is it someone who is an excellent researcher and can publish a lot? Or someone who has a proven record of attracting research funding? Or is it perhaps someone who can help share departmental teaching loads? The second discussion is the thematic orientation, or how broad should the applicant’s academic profile be. For example, is a historian wanted, or perhaps a medieval historian? A political scientist or maybe an international relations scholar? Thematic orientation is not random and often is linked to the strategic considerations of topics and expertise the departments have adopted as focus areas through their job plans. There are normally democratic processes in which academic staff are involved in defining what kind of competence and topics the department should focus on. Therefore, when deciding on thematic orientation in the job advertisements there may be battles between sub-disciplines, between the different disciplines in a multidisciplinary field, or between practice orientation and research orientation (Orupabo & Mangset, 2022; Van den Brink et al., 2010).

The subsequent recruitment stages comprise of an expert committee and interview committee. However, some universities often add another stage before moving to the expert committee – a selection committee. This stage is, in some universities, formalized while in others it is done informally and on a necessary basis, depending largely on the number of candidates. The selection committee comprises of internal academics and often a department head whose job is to make sure that applicants meet the formal requirements outlined in the job announcement, but also to identify the most prominent candidates based on an evaluation of applicants’ CVs and to make the first selection of those with best metrics (e.g. number of publications) and future potential to be forwarded to the expert committee (Reymert, 2022).

After the completion of the work done by the selection committee, universities establish an expert committee, composed of both internal and external professors. The expert committee is considered in the Norwegian setting as the most influential entity in the recruitment process. These committees enjoy high levels of legitimacy, and their candidate rankings are hard to change (Orupabo & Mangset, 2022; Reymert, 2022). The guidelines set by the regulations require this expert committee to assess the candidates based on their academic, pedagogic, personal, management, and administrative qualifications, as well as their publication records. Among these qualifications, academic qualifications hold the utmost significance. However, regulations only provide a general definition of academic qualifications and fail to offer specific guidelines. As a result, the committee members have the authority to define research quality and decide whether to utilize metrics in their evaluations (Reymert, 2021). Thus, the expert committee normally pays greatest attention to the quality of the candidates’ research contributions. The perception of what quality research is strongly depends on academic disciplines. Each has its own notion of what comprises research quality. For example, some disciplines emphasize candidates’ publications in high-impact journals, while others do not. Moreover, the situation is gradually evolving, partly due to the influence of Declaration on Research Assessment – DORA (Orduña-Malea & Bautista-Puig, 2024) as more weight is given to one’s contribution to the academic field rather than solely to publication levels. In addition, teaching and supervision are given stronger consideration than in the past (Reymert, 2022).

The highest ranked candidates by the expert committee are then called for a trial lecture and subsequently an interview. The interview committee consists of an internal professor(s), department leaders, administration staff and, in some cases, a union member and student representative. This committee conducts a more holistic and strategic evaluation of candidates considering who would be best suited for the department. Thus, they evaluate the candidates’ teaching abilities, ability to attract external funding, social skills, and administrative skills. These qualifications have become more important, and the interview committees have more frequently changed the expert committee candidate rankings in recent years (Reymert, 2022).

Finally, the decision on the eventual job offer is made by the department council, usually led by the department head. The original ranking of candidates is reassessed and, if required, the order is changed with the first candidate being offered the position. In some instances, the decision may be made to not offer the job to the second ranked candidate in case the first candidate declines. In those situations, a new job advertisement is required, and the process starts all over again. The final ruling made by the department council is later approved by the faculty council. It is quite rare that a faculty council overrules a department council decision (Orupabo & Mangset, 2022).

Existing scholarly literature shows some changes in the recruiting process in Norway in recent decades. For example, Orupabo and Mangset (2022) noticed that in the past twenty years the announcement texts are increasingly published not just in Norwegian, but also in the English language. In addition, the HEIs share information not only with individuals who are already connected to these institutions locally, but also reach out to external networks and institutions. Lastly, the announcements are promoted not only nationally but also in international forums. Such channels of communication ensure widespread dissemination of information. The same authors also explored how the criteria for assessing quality are applied in practice in the recruitment process, including during the job announcement stage (N=48 job advertisements), with a special focus on the gender dimension. They found that in the Norwegian context, the job announcement stage is increasingly inclusive, since job advertisements include a section where women are encouraged to apply, while the remaining stages remain excluding in practice.

Other scholars focused more on the use of metrics and different institutional logics at play during the recruitment process. Reymert (2021) employed a sample of 57 job advertisements to explore the use of metrics in academic recruitment at the University of Oslo. Results showed that job advertisements emphasized scientific output and number of publications more profoundly in some disciplines (economics and informatics) with a sharp increase in recent decades, while in others (sociology and physics), job advertisements tend to refer to research quality in general terms. The same author (Reymert, 2022) also looked at different institutional logics at play at different stages of academic recruitment - organizational and academic logics. Organizational logic was at play during the job advertisements stage since these documents were primarily concerned with meeting organizational needs and strategies. The same applies to the selection- and interview- committee. Academic logic was found to be more dominant only at the expert committee stage. Finally, Mantai and Marrone (2023) examined an impressive sample of 40,819 job advertisements from 60 countries (Norway included) and covering 40 disciplines in examining the requirements for progression from early career researcher to full professor. They found that teaching expectations have gained importance in recent years, and that senior academics need to be equipped with skills and/or experience in fundraising, curriculum development, and outreach.

An analysis of job advertisements between 2000 and 2020 reveals two significant trends regarding the nature of these documents as recruitment tools and the evolution of external role expectations for Norwegian academics. The first trend acknowledges the shift in job advertisements’ structure and content over time, progressing from simple and concise documents in the early years to more elaborate, engaging, and professional looking documents towards the end of the observed period. The second trend emphasizes the change and stability in external expectations of role requirements during the job announcement stage of the academic hiring process. This paper will delve into these two trends in greater detail in the following section.

We now turn to the second part of the analysis. As outlined in the previous section, academic roles expectations, as presented in job advertisements, have experienced some noticeable developments over the last two decades. To explore these developments in detail, this study employed frequency analysis of academic activities representing different academic roles in the entire data set (N=1744 job advertisements). To conduct frequency analysis, a taxonomy was formulated following the initial two phases of coding and content analysis, as presented in Table 1. While some of the phrases were selected based on previous research (Ćulum, 2015; Höhle & Teichler, 2013; Kyvik, 2013; Schnurbus & Edvardsson, 2022), others were chosen because results of the content analysis indicated that these are often used to define academic roles in job advertisements.

Table 2 displays mean frequency of occurrence of academic activities divided into academic roles of research, teaching, administration and third mission, i.e. on average, how many references to academic roles each job advertisement contains per observed year. Table 3, on the other hand, presents mean frequency of occurrence of documents containing references to main academic roles, i.e. on average, how many job advertisements contain references to descriptors belonging to academic roles for each year in question. Figures 1 and 2, presented later in the text, are graphic representations of frequencies in Tables 2 and 3.

The results reveal a significant rise in indicators related to research and teaching roles throughout the years. There is also a noticeable, though less pronounced, increase in the third mission role indicators. On the other hand, descriptors associated with the administrative role have remained nearly unchanged during the observed period. The same pattern emerges when examining documents that encompass main academic roles. Teaching and research indicators are found in approximately 80-100% of the documents. Initially, third mission role indicators were less prevalent, appearing in only about every other document. However, over time, this figure has risen to almost 90%. In contrast, references to the administrative role exhibited the most fluctuation. They started at a 20% presence in job advertisements at the beginning of the observed period, rose to nearly 60% at the midpoint, and then sharply declined to 30% by the end.

If the frequency of occurrence of academic role indicators and the number of documents containing them is used as a proxy for the relative importance of these roles for Norwegian academics, and the weight given to each role in the evaluation phase of the hiring process, then research and teaching seem to be the most important roles for academics at the time of hiring. However, the relative importance of these two roles has changed over the years. While at the start of the observed timeframe, references to both were almost equal with approximately 4 references per document, as time progressed, research indicators were rising much faster compared to teaching ones, especially between 2005 and 2014. Then, the growth of references related to research somewhat slowed down, only to again become almost identical to teaching references – with about 14 per job advertisement (with research still only marginally more prominent). On the other hand, references related to teaching experienced a constant rise during this time frame. When it comes to the third mission descriptors, they also rose from 1 to almost 4 references per document by 2020, indicating the growing importance of third mission tasks for academics. Finally, administration proves to be the least important academic role, with no observable major changes during the 20-year period.

The present paper's data analysis has uncovered two principal sets of findings. First, it can be contended that the academic profession’s expectations in regard to roles and tasks, as explicated in the job advertisements, have undergone a surge in number and complexity over the years, indicating greater expectations from the academic profession in Norway. Second, it has been observed that the job advertisements for professors and associate professors have also undergone transformation over the last two decades, evolving from simple documents to complex branding and recruiting artifacts, thus also leading to more numerous and detailed role expectations.

The first finding suggests that academic roles are in fact becoming increasingly complex and demanding for Norwegian academics to perform. The frequency analysis indicates that universities have increased their role expectations of academics along with the evolution of academic roles, while job advertisements merely reflect this trend and present the “reality” as it is. The logic of this argument is somewhat supported by academic research that suggests a shift in the academic profession globally (Aarrevaara et al., 2021; Arimoto, 2014) towards more numerous and increasingly diverse tasks, higher workloads, as well as general pressures for higher quality and excellence in all aspects of scholarly work (Carton & Ungureanu, 2018; Hermanowicz, 2018; Rosewell & Ashwin, 2018). Thus, it appears that the Norwegian academic profession is evolving in the same direction.

Observing from the vantage point of role theory (Anglin et al., 2022), it can be concluded from this study that academic roles in Norway are not static and that some changes have occurred over the years observed. Findings show that role expectations have increased for three out of four role categories. Even though job advertisements only show expected roles in their desired or “ideal” state (Harper, 2012; Pilcher et al., 2021), based on role theory (Bess & Dee, 2008; Katz & Khan, 1966), as role expectations increase and shift, one can deduce that “real” academic roles (and not simply the expected ones) will be changing as well (Kyvik, 2013). However, it would be fallacious to perceive this transformation as “tectonic shifts", and rather should be regarded as subtler modifications of the existing role categories.

As previously outlined, role theory argues that occupational roles can change in terms of quantity as well as quality (R. Turner, 1990). Quantitatively, a new role can be created, or an established role can be dissolved - a total number of roles that can be attributed to any given office can either increase or decrease. Roles can also change either by the addition or subtraction of tasks and the rights attached to them (Biddle, 1979; Carton & Ungureanu, 2018; Defazio et al., 2020). Role theory also suggests that a role can also change qualitatively by means of shifts in the relative salience of the role’s composing elements, by the substitution of those elements, by a gain or loss of power or prestige, and/or by the reinterpretation of its meaning (Bess & Dee, 2008; R. Turner, 2002).

Findings in this study do not conclusively support the claim that academic roles in the Norwegian setting changed quantitatively, even though such a trend has been observed elsewhere (Krause, 2009). Norwegian academics have always been engaged in research and teaching with all the tasks encompassed in them, with administration positioned at the intersection of the two, thus maintaining the Humboldtian ideal (Vabø, 2011). The same argument can be made for the third mission, albeit to a lesser degree during the initial years. Thus, the increase in descriptors and the frequency of occurrence of expectations pertaining to existing academic roles is more likely to be a result of the evolution of the job advertisements themselves than the role unbundling or the increase in the number of roles and their tasks.

On the other hand, qualitative changes may be partly observed in some of the academic roles. This applies to generating external research funding and managing research projects as part of the researcher role. While this task was evident in some academic disciplines in the Norwegian academia already at the beginning of the research period, the increasing rationalization of universities (Krücken & Meier, 2006; Lee & Ramirez, 2023; Ramirez, 2006, 2010) and the steady influx of neoliberal ideas in the form of NPM (Bleiklie, 2023; Broucker & Wit, 2015) all lead to increasing expectations towards this particular research task over the years. With the influx of an excellence narrative and drive towards quality and prestige (Ramirez & Tiplic, 2014), but also the need for additional funding in a resource strained environment, Norwegian academics are under increased pressure to apply for research projects at local (Municipal structures), national (Norwegian Research Council), regional (Nordic Councils), European (European Research Council), and other levels as well (Brokjøb et al., 2022).

The rise in references pertaining to the third mission role point to the same logic (Compagnucci & Spigarelli, 2020; Schnurbus & Edvardsson, 2022), as literature indicate that Norwegian academics are increasingly expected to engage with both commercialization activities (primarily within STEM) and dissemination/collaboration/outreach activities (Bentley & Kyvik, 2012; Pinheiro et al., 2015). Finally, when it comes to teaching, one can argue that this academic role has undergone a change of meaning in the Norwegian context. While literature suggests that this role is also increasingly valued (Levander et al., 2020; Mantai & Marrone, 2023; Orduña-Malea & Bautista-Puig, 2024), as can be observed from the increase in frequency of teaching role references, some scholars claim that this is true only in terms of covering specific organizational teaching needs and much less so in terms of an integral element of being an academic (Reymert, 2022; Reymert & Thune, 2022).

Finally, role theory also stipulates that academics must also engage in the hierarchization of role expectations, in which case, the activities that are subject to stronger pressures (either externally from leadership and peers or internally from intrinsic motivation, prestige, and the desire to be successful), have higher saliency (prestige and incentives), urgency (deadlines for paper submissions or times of a more intensive teaching), and legitimacy (research and teaching have stronger foundations than service), or have stronger sanctions for non-compliance and will thus gain priority (Brew et al., 2018; Kraimer et al., 2019). Therefore, it can be concluded that the current dominance of research, followed by teaching and third mission roles, is unlikely to change in the Norwegian setting. Administrative role elements will continue to be underadvertised, as these tasks are not very attractive for academics.

The alternative and for the most part more compelling explanation for the increase of indicators pertaining to academic role expectations relates directly to the nature of job advertisements (Harper, 2012). As these documents are constantly evolving, they are becoming increasingly sophisticated and elaborate in their delineation of academic duties. Consequently, one possible interpretation is that universities, in Norway and elsewhere, have recognized the necessity to explicate academic role expectations in a more comprehensive manner, leading to the creation of more intricate, systematic, and informative documents (Lavigne & Sá, 2021). This finding is in line with the literature concerning general trends in the evolution of job advertisements, indicating that organizations in general tend to favor more detailed job descriptions, hoping this strategy would attract a higher number of high-quality candidates (Ganesan et al., 2020; Muduli & Trivedi, 2020).

As competition between HEIs and industry, as well as among HEIs themselves, intensifies, job advertisements are also increasingly perceived as a branding and marketing tool (Kheovichai, 2014; Pitt & Mewburn, 2016). This was clearly visible from the increasing portion of job advertisements dedicated to describing the benefits of working in a particular university or department, living in the city where the university is located, or accessing a generous benefits package. In addition, job advertisements increasingly incorporated images, icons, logos and other visual elements, generally used in other industries to promote a brand (Drori et al., 2013). Universities are therefore attempting to differentiate themselves by relying on job advertisements as branding artefacts as well (Thellefsen et al., 2006).

However, the fact that job advertisements follow a similar logic, have the same elements, and use identical visual effects across the university sector, shows that HEIs in Norway are also trying to increase their legitimacy across the organizational field, domestically and globally. This drive for conformity prevents, to some extent, universities from expressing their unique features, thus stepping away from differentiation efforts (Kuoppakangas et al., 2020; Wille et al., 2020). From this, it could be concluded that the increased complexity and rich detail of job advertisements provides valuable insight into universities’ ambitions in an increasingly marketized sector, as well as reflects their strategic desire to recruit the best academic talents while simultaneously discouraging those candidates with less potential (Cooman & Pepermans, 2012). Therefore, job advertisements can be interpreted as suggesting a “desired” or “ideal” state of academic work as perceived by HEIs themselves (Pilcher et al., 2021), but not necessarily depicting what is in fact happening with “real” academic life on the ground.

The evolution of job advertisements in Norway towards more detailed and complex documents can also be seen as part of universities’ efforts to become complete organizational actors (Krücken & Meier, 2006). Therefore, as part of the rationalization process of university activities (Ramirez, 2006, 2010), both globally as indicated by Lee & Ramirez (2023) and in Norway as indicated by Ramirez and Christensen (2013), hiring procedures are also becoming more professional and rule-based. This is especially prominent when the evolution of the announcement stage in the hiring process is observed. As Orupabo and Mangset (2022) noticed, the preparation and design of job advertisements is perhaps the most important phase in the recruitment process, as it provides the framework for decision-making in the following steps. In other words, academics can only be expected to do something or to be evaluated based on requirements and criteria outlined in job advertisements. Thus, the increase in academic expectations can also be explained by the desire to be as inclusive as possible and to encompass all possible expectations, laying the foundation for further recruitment steps. The rationalization process is also visible from within expanded and more professional university HR departments, new screening methods for candidates based on performance indicators (metrics), and expanded roles of managers in recruiting new academics (Reymert, 2021). Finally, rationalization efforts can also be observed from the fact that Norwegian universities increasingly advertise vacant positions in both English and Norwegian languages, locally but also internationally, and increasingly relying on professional and social networks alike alongside hiring tools such as job portals. Thus, it can be concluded from the existing literature that all the above mentioned NPM led rationalization developments are not only specific to Norway but have global roots, combined with some local Norwegian peculiarities as shown (Lee & Ramirez, 2023; Ramirez & Christensen, 2013)

The data further suggests that, as organizations, universities are also acting more strategically when it comes to recruiting new academics. By employing talent management practices (Minbaeva & Collings, 2013; Thunnissen et al., 2013), universities in Norway are hoping to attract the best and the brightest scholars who can help universities achieve their organizational goals and successfully compete with other HEIs for funding, students and prestige. These efforts are also linked to the NPM (policy/managerial) drive which is evident in Norwegian academia but globally as well (Bleiklie, 2023; Broucker & Wit, 2015), seeking to make public organizations more business-like (Paisey & Paisey, 2018; van den Brink et al., 2013). As universities are experiencing increased demands and expectations from multiple stakeholders, they expect newly hired professors to help fulfill them (Minbaeva & Collings, 2013; van den Brink et al., 2013). Recent studies have shown that today’s “desirable professors” must possess the ability to obtain external funding, cover departmental teaching needs, and be easily integrated into the local working environment, in addition to mastering research excellence that has traditionally been at the heart of academic recruitment (Paisey & Paisey, 2018). As professors/associate professors in Norway are increasingly recruited as organizational assets, job advertisements have, as result, become more formalized in outlining academic expectations in greater detail. Thus, as Reymert (2022) indicated, the managerial logic is the dominant one in the first stage of the hiring process as these documents are primarily concerned with meeting organizational needs and strategies.

The main results in this study are twofold. First, the findings indicate not only great, but indeed greater expectations from some of the academic roles and tasks over the years, as outlined in the job advertisements. By relying on role theory, this study shows both stability and change in the evolution of academic role expectations in Norwegian academia. Therefore, third mission work, external funding generation, and managing research projects as part of the research role have in fact become more salient. The contention that the teaching role is more strongly emphasized than before in job advertisements is true more in terms of covering specific organizational teaching needs (Levander et al., 2020; Levander & Riis, 2016; Reymert, 2022) and much less so as an integral element of being/becoming an academic (even tough teaching qualifications recently gained importance in the evaluation process). On the other hand, the remaining tasks, insofar as the research and administrative roles are concerned, were found to keep stable positions throughout the 20-year period. Thus, it could be claimed that the Humboldtian model continues to dominate in Norwegian HE (Vabø, 2011), with research and teaching taking the lead (and administration seen as a necessity), and with the third mission gaining importance, particularly in the last decade. The results also indicate that Norwegian academics face similar evolution in role expectations as their colleagues in other (European and Anglo Saxon) countries. Furthermore, the relative importance of different role qualifications during the hiring process appears to be similarly valued as well (Aarrevaara et al., 2021; Teichler et al., 2013).

The second and more compelling explanation for the increase of indicators associated to academic role expectations relates directly to the nature of job advertisements. As these documents are constantly evolving (Harper, 2012), they are becoming increasingly sophisticated and elaborate in their delineation of academic duties. Consequently, one possible interpretation of the study’s findings is that Norwegian universities have recognized the necessity to explicate academic role expectations in a more comprehensive manner, thus leading to the creation of more intricate, systematic, and informative documents. This finding is in line with the literature on general trends in evolution of job advertisements (Muduli & Trivedi, 2020), but also in regard to the increasing role of branding (Drori, 2013) and rationalization (Ramirez, 2006) efforts at universities. The latter are underpinned by the influence of a neo-liberal (NPM/managerial) agenda (Lee & Ramirez, 2023) in Norwegian HE (Ramirez & Christensen, 2013) and universities needing to respond to the expectations of multiple stakeholders. Thus, more detailed job descriptions are favored in the hopes that this strategy will attract a higher number of high- quality candidates who will, in turn, be engaged in fulfilling organizational goals.

The utilization of role theory (Anglin et al., 2022) in this particular study, when combined with the analysis of job advertisements, reveals the potential strengths associated with this analytical lens and helps to identify research areas to be explored in the future. The concepts of role expectations and role hierarchization (Bess & Dee, 2008; R. Turner, 2002) within role theory proved to be highly beneficial in analyzing and interpreting the findings of the study. However, the concept of role change (R. Turner, 1990) requires further refinement, as also indicated by Anglin et al. (2022). While the conducted study, which was analytically based on role theory and empirically grounded in job advertisements, indicates a shift towards greater role expectations, additional literature was necessary to understand the driving forces behind this development. By incorporating literature on university branding and academic recruitment, this study was able to demonstrate with more clarity and certainty that the increase in academic expectations in job advertisements is to a great extent a result of rationalization and marketization efforts that have been implemented in Norwegian HE. Consequently, even though Norwegian HE may be considered a latecomer, it seems to be increasingly aligning itself with the global developments in the evolution of academic work.

Finally, there are several avenues for further research. This study could be replicated in other contexts, including within the Nordics, and expanded by using additional sources of data (e.g., interviews and observation) to gain a better understanding of what academic work looks like “on the ground.” As suggested, as a construct, role change needs to be further examined, both empirically and conceptually by clearly specifying the mechanisms associated with change processes as well as the boundaries related to the complex interplay between qualitative and quantitative change patterns on the one hand, and the complex interplay between change and stability patterns on the other. As a final point, scholars may examine the relationship between changes in governance and the shifts in academic roles and qualifications since various policy changes (in Norway and elsewhere) have been established to guide universities in the search for and shaping of an “ideal” academic.

Conflict of Interest

The author has no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.