EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: THEME 5

The initial working description of sub-theme 5 was as follows:

Sub-theme 5. Institutional Leadership & the Autonomy of ADs. As institutional

strategic planning by its leadership has given greater prominence to

internationalisation, competitiveness and being ‘research intensive’ with all that is

implied in that phrase, has the work of ADs become more prescribed, more imbued

with the mission and strategic plans of their respective institutions. The other side of

this coin is, in such circumstances, to what extent have the roles and responsibilities

of ADs been enhanced or circumscribed and prescribed, or has their repositioning

enabled them as agents of change to exercise influence on institutional leadership as

key internal players.

With the benefit of hindsight, I’m not entirely convinced that this was the most appropriate

‘theme’ around leadership. Consequently, of the papers selected, it took some ingenuity to

group them into something meaningful. Towards that end, leadership is being used in three

senses. First, the leadership of ADs themselves and how that is exercised and perceived.

Second, their relationship with senior leaders and how that role is enacted, as well as the

contribution they make to organisational leadership. Third, in terms of their practice, how

they contribute to and cultivate the leadership of academic staff. Finally, my ‘reading’ of

these papers seeks to infer leadership directions and possible futures for the roles,

responsibilities, identities of ADs—their ongoing formation and competence building.

16 papers were selected for review.

Methods: Of the 16 papers reviewed, two used quantitative survey methods, while the

other 14 were qualitative, relying on interviews mostly, while 3 identified as adopting an

Action Research approach, one from an Arts-Humanities perspective, while one other may

be regarded as conceptual and practical (an introduction to self-study).

Trends in the literature:

On close scrutiny of the 16 papers reviewed for this theme, some were more relevant than

others, but with relatively few focusing directly on the actual leadership practices of ADs.

Rather, the general trend suggested by the work is of further evidence of the roles and

responsibilities of ADs becoming more complex and mainstream.

Significant influences identified in this regard are external forces of globalisation,

internationalisation, and a quickening of the pace of change whereby, universities are being

obliged to become ‘learning organisations’.

Due to the accelerated and accelerating pace of change there is considerably more

‘turbulence’ and ‘disruption’ with considerable consequences for ADs and the leadership

they exercise within their respective organisations

With a combination of increasing specialisation, there is a trend towards both role

complexity and diffusion which in some instances results in lack of coherence

The pressure that ensues from the pace of change and increasing demands on time, as

well as increasing complexification, in some instances at least ADs are being forced into

prioritising teaching over research, while in others there is intensification of both

With such conditions characterising the workplace realties of ADs, there are inevitable tensions that

are captured here.

Centalisation V Autonomy, professional discretion

Bamber and Anderson (2012) describe this tension as between ‘system and values’ driven in the UK

context at least by a shift in emphasis from Quality Assurance to Quality Enhancement, whereby the

discretion to evaluate one’s own teaching is subverted by centralised data collection leading to

tensions between individual’s professional growth and ownership of it to a sense of alienation. In

such circumstances, these authors argue, ADs may have to intervene, to educate institutional

leaders regarding assessment procedures and what they can legitimately achieve, thus positioning

ADs as ‘brokers’ within the organisation, a new and emerging role, requiring considerable agency,

knowledge and political nous.

Profiles of ADs—emerging leadership competencies: Individual V Organisation

Blackmore and Blackwell (2006) shine a spotlight on an under-researched aspect of ADs—namely

their profiles, pointing out that in earlier Australian studies (Fraser 1999; Hicks, 1997) that such

profiles were “a shifting product of many iterations” (p. 337); some did not have doctorates, while

approximately 50% had teaching backgrounds, predominantly the secondary school. Given the

increasing complexity and institutional positioning of ADs with expectations to take on more public

leadership responsibilities, more attention to profiles, expertise etc in order to align more

appropriately between personnel and the demands of the role, while this reality also requires

continuous attention to the CPD needs of ADs and all academic staff. Elton (2009), espousing the

Humboltian tradition advocates “maximum freedom from prescription” when the latter is in the

ascendant in many institutions—thus pressing ADs to exercise leadership in a variety of ways.

ADs’ Leadership: The embrace of resistance and compliance

Honan et al (2013) with reference to a more turbulent working environment, indicate clearly that

ADs need to be ‘advocates’ regarding the need for sustained attention to teaching and learning in

the organisation, particularly since trustees and bursars, who allocate funding, are likely not to

prioritise these less visible issues, particularly when they make no claims to expertise in these fields.

Such leadership responsibility bring ADs into direct contact with and possibly into conflict with

senior leaders—leaving ADs more visible and vulnerable thus they too need to become more

strategic. Laursen and Rocque, (2014) are emphatic in this regard that since universities now are

‘learning organisations’ ADs have got to exercise agency and leadership within this evolving milieu.

This more public leadership role inevitably leads to other tensions. Aspects of these leadership

challenges are particularly well addressed in—Handal et al. 2014, Little and Green, 2012, Neame,

2013, and Taylor 2005.

Creativity V Control-Compliance

The more contemporary reform rhetoric is that universities must be ‘learning organisations’,

thus there is a trend towards prescribing that future, preventing the necessary ‘space’ for

‘creativity’ to flourish, while as Bluteau & Krummis (2008) assert, ADs need to be alert to this

need and to seek to build competence by promoting an appropriate balance that creates ‘space

to be creative’, thus the necessity for ADs to be ‘bridge builders’ within the organisation—an

individual and collective endeavour. From an organisational perspective, Brew and Cahir (2014)

insist that if continuous turbulence is not to become too disruptive, an important leadership

responsibility for ADs is to promote ‘sustainability’ when initiative overload is counter-

productive. Consequently, ADs need new competencies, priorities, as well as having strategic

plans of their own; they require a new ‘mindset’ necessitating ‘that developers have … a broad

perspective on higher education landscape’, to ‘approach new initiatives with an element of

detachment’, and while they’ll continue to be knowledgeable about teaching and learning,

their leadership remit will also extend to challenging the ‘underlying assumptions about the role

of the higher education teacher, … and the role and function of universities and how these relate

to broader societal trends’ (p. 350).

AD leadership: between compliance and resistance

In the new realities of HE, ADs are obliged to be knowledgeable about ‘organisational culture’

(Neame, 2013) and the challenges of change, while Little and Green (2011) indicate that in such

circumstances ADs are positioned in a ‘third space’ between margin and mainstream, positioned

increasingly to be a ‘broker and enforcer’, dealing with the tension between ‘subversive-

assimilative tendencies’, sometimes ‘silent’, while other occasions require ‘resistance’. Taylor

(2005) is in no doubt that the work of ADs is definitely in the ‘leadership domain’, thus in similar

vein with Little and Green, she focuses attention of ADs competencies—a repertoire that needs

to be ‘academic’ as position and disposition, with a judicious blend of empathy, listening,

negotiating, that as ‘captain-coach’ is at once ‘individual-collective’, modelling leadership, while

advocating for teaching and learning, and being a broker regarding ‘the political system of the

university’. There is agreement between Wouters et al (2013) that such leadership is a

‘collaborative’, while Handel and his colleagues (2014) are in little doubt that this new emergent

agentic leadership is positioned in Little and Green’s (2011) ‘third space, thus enabling them to

be activisit-advocate, aware of their own values and how these underpin leadership, aware of

risk, yet dealing with compliance and resistance not in an either or manner but in recognition of

power relations and doing the right thing—being leaderly rather than managerial (Leibowitz et

al. 2011).

There is clearly a new language of leadership of ADs already in existence, and it continues to

evolve, even if as yet it is somewhat underdeveloped. It includes aspects of leadership,

awareness of organisational cultures, of educational change, the necessity to model leadership,

to advocate for sustainable reform, to be strategic, to be politically aware, aware of values, of

power and positioning within the university. This is a much more visible, vulnerable and

challenging role; responsibilities no longer confined to teaching and learning only. It is exciting

and frightening in equal measure, while alerting for the necessity to build the competences

necessary for this role, and to pay more attention to recruitment into AD careers, as well as

devising appropriate career pathways for advancement. These are vital if ADs are to realise their

potential, and make significant contributions to organisational learning—a transformational

experience for all concerned.

THEME 5 JOURNALS ABSTRACTS ETC. 10/02/’16

JOURNALS-

Summary: 9 papers from IJAD, 6 papers from as many ‘other’ journals listed immediately below; 15

in total.

1. International Journal for Academic Development- 9

2. Studies in Higher Education

3. Journal of Further and Higher Education

4. Arts & Humanities in Higher Education

5. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING,

6. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning

7. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education

8.

What follows is a screen shot of the 15 pdf files reviewed—with author date, and in some instances

the journal is also indicated

1. Evaluating learning and teaching: institutional needs and individual practices Veronica Bamber & Sally Anderson To cite this article: Veronica Bamber & Sally Anderson (2012) Evaluating learning and teaching: institutional needs and individual practices, International Journal for Academic Development, 17:1, 5-18, DOI: 10.1080/1360144X.2011.586459 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2011.586459

Rather than a rational, technical activity, evaluation reflects the socio-political

dynamics of the evaluative context. This presents a challenge for universities

and the individuals within them, who may assume that plans or policies for

evaluation will result in straightforward outcomes. This small-scale study in one

institution looks at the tensions between institutional evaluative needs and individual

evaluative practices. The results indicate that for staff in the institution,

evaluative activity is largely autonomous and self-driven, rather than following

institutional policy. A discretionary framework for the evaluation of learning

and teaching was developed, which may be a useful tool for educational developers

in their analysis of evaluative practice.

Keywords: evaluation; quality enhancement; quality assurance; policy; evaluative

Practices

Methods: In a small HE institution in the UK with a total academic staff of 200, having piloted a survey instrument,

the following summarises the methodology and response rate:

A final version of the questionnaire was issued electronically via Bristol Online

Surveys (BOS), and all staff with responsibility for facilitating student learning were

invited to complete it. The survey was left open for six weeks, with circular reminder

emails issued to all staff at two-weekly intervals. The 50 responses received

(approximately 25% of academic staff) were from a spread of subject disciplines.

Quantitative data were generated automatically by BOS, and qualitative comments

were categorised by themes – comments relating to self-evaluation; peer or team

evaluation; management and administrative issues; and ‘other’. ‘Other’ included a

small number of comments relating to student issues (e.g. completion rates for questionnaires),

constraints and resources, and procedural issues. (p. 9).

2. Strategic leadership in academic development Paul Blackmore & Richard Blackwell To cite this article: Paul Blackmore & Richard Blackwell (2006) Strategic leadership in academic development, Studies in Higher Education, 31:03, 373-387, DOI: 10.1080/03075070600680893 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070600680893

The nature of academic work is changing rapidly, with moves towards professionalisation

takingplace against a background of fragmentation. Indeed, some aspects of

professionalisation may have a fragmenting effect. It is suggested that there remains

considerable value in the idea of an integrated faculty role. Noting that leaders in staff

development face similar pressures to professionalise, the writers consider what expertise is

required for the leadership in academic development role, and how role holders and those

aspiring to the role may best develop their professional capabilities. They argue for an

integrated conception of academic development, and a correspondingly integrated view

of the developer’s professional identity and role. It is suggested that this will put leaders in

academic development into a position that is more congruent with faculty self-perceptions,

and enable them to support those in faculty roles more effectively.

Methods: Eleven heads from the M1/M69 regional grouping of universities in the English

Midlands were interviewed, with additional material drawn from discussion with a

further nationally-based sample of seven heads. The total sample therefore represented

almost a fifth of those in post, and was drawn randomly from old and new,

large and small, research- and teaching-focused institutions. Critical incident technique

(Flanagan, 1954) was used to explore less formal aspects of roles. Interviewees

were invited to focus on incidents when they believed they had been particularly

successful, or otherwise. (p. 376)

3. Engaging academics in developing excellence: releasing creativity through reward and recognition Patricia Bluteau & Marie Anne Krumins To cite this article: Patricia Bluteau & Marie Anne Krumins (2008) Engaging academics in developing excellence: releasing creativity through reward and recognition, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 32:4, 415-426, DOI: 10.1080/03098770802538137 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03098770802538137

This article explores the importance of giving academics the space to be creative

in developing new teaching materials in the context of a government drive to

increase the quality of the student experience, and what this means for ‘academic

staff development’. Academics who have engaged with a UK Centre for

Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) in one institution were interviewed

about their experiences of the creative process and the reward and recognition

strategies put in place to support its activities. The paper acknowledges the

pressures and challenges facing academic staff in attempting to develop

innovative materials, yet find that enthusiasm for looking at new ways of

teaching and learning is still fervent. The paper argues that financial rewards are

least important to staff when undertaking projects with the CETL, yet to

managers with targets for income it is perceived as a priority. The importance of a

supportive team and environment when engaging with CETLs is evident in

building staff capacity and developing skills to take learning to a new level. A

model of engaging with the CETL in creating e-learning materials is suggested to

illustrate the stages academics go through in the pursuit of developing innovative

exemplars of best practice.

Keywords: creativity; reward; recognition; academics; space; teaching and

learning; excellence

Methods:

The approach adopted was action research in Coventry (1 institution), 16 secondees were

surveyed, and 11 responded + inteviews with 5

The CIPeL team at Coventry University currently supervises sixteen academic

secondment projects. Following ethical approval an electronic questionnaire3 was

distributed to all secondees working within the CIPeL at Coventry to consider their

thoughts on the secondment relating to reward and recognition. It was sent out to all 16

seconded at the time (all at different stages within the secondment) with 11 respondents. (p. 418). This was

followed by 5 indepth interviews of 5 from the 11 respondents.

4. Does a faculty development programme improve teachers’ perceived competence in different teacher roles? T. B. B. BOERBOOM1, D. H. J. M. DOLMANS2, A. M. M. MUIJTJENS2, A. D. C. JAARSMA1, P. VAN BEUKELEN2 & A. J. J. A. SCHERPBIER3

1Utrecht University, Chair Quality Improvement in Veterinary Education, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, 2Maastricht University, Department of Educational Development and Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, 3Scherpbier, Albert; Maastricht University, Institute for Medical Education, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences

Abstract Background: Changing concepts of education have led many medical schools to adopt student-centred approaches to teaching, requiring different teaching competencies than more traditional approaches. Aims: The aim of this study was to investigate whether participation in a faculty development (FD) programme had a positive effect on veterinary medical teachers’ perceptions of their competence in seven different teaching roles. Method: All teaching staff of a veterinary medical school (251) were invited to complete a questionnaire asking about their perceived competence in seven teaching roles. A stepwise multiple linear regression analysis examined the effect of the completion of a FD programme on perceived teaching competence. Results: There was a significant positive effect of the FD programme on teachers’ perceived competence in majority of the teaching roles at issue. Conclusions: FD appeared to have a positive effect on the perceived competence of veterinary medical teachers. Further research should investigate whether FD actually results in improved teaching performance.

Methods:

This study was conducted at the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, the Netherlands (FVMU) in 2007, where curriculum revisions in 1995, 2001 and 2007 had promoted student-centred methods, such as small group work. At Utrecht University, all teaching faculty are offered a 2- year (125 h) FD programme. All 251 faculty members of FVMU were invited to participate in this study. Of these, approximately two-thirds were level 1 teachers (postgraduate students, junior lecturers and assistant professors) and one-third were level 2 teachers (associate and full professors). 62% were clinical teachers. We elicited teachers’ perceptions of their competence by administering a questionnaire based on a framework developed by Tigelaar et al. (2004), (p. 1030)

5. Achieving sustainability in learning and teaching initiatives Angela Brew & Jayde Cahir To cite this article: Angela Brew & Jayde Cahir (2014) Achieving sustainability in learning and teaching initiatives, International Journal for Academic Development, 19:4, 341-352, DOI: 10.1080/1360144X.2013.848360 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2013.848360

Universities have a long history of change in learning and teaching to suit

various government initiatives and institutional priorities. Academic developers

now are frequently required to address strategic learning and teaching priorities.

This paper asks how, in such a context, academic developers can ensure that

work they do in relation to one specific institutional priority can support future

learning and teaching strategies. Two examples of efforts to integrate research

and teaching are discussed to demonstrate the length of time needed to develop

institutional understanding and how to create sustainable resources to meet the

needs of changing initiatives. The paper highlights the importance of a sustainable

approach to ever-changing learning and teaching priorities, suggesting that

resources and other work developed to meet institutional initiatives should be

structured so that they can be readily reused or adapted when policies

change. The paper concludes by drawing out some implications for academic

development.

Keywords: academic developers; change; learning and teaching; policy;

Sustainability

Methods:

No direct messages re methods for this paper, see notes below.

6. Continuing Professional Development in

Higher Education The role of the scholarship of teaching and learning lewis e lton Centre for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning, University College London

ab stract

It is argued that Humboldt’s original definition of ‘scholarship’ (Wissenschaft), as

well as Humboldt’s concept of the purpose of a university, continue to be relevant

– with appropriate adaptations. They should be extended to include not only a

unity between the practice of teaching and learning and research into teaching

and learning, but also an overall unity of teaching and research, i.e. disciplinary as

well as generic teaching and learning, together with disciplinary research and

research into teaching and learning: all in the service of scholarship (Wissenschaft).

This should be accompanied by appropriate academic staff development and

training, framed on the basis of evaluated experience and going well beyond

Humboldt, leading to a postgraduate qualification.

keywords Humboldt, postgraduate qualification, professional development,

scholarship, unity of research and teaching

Methods:

As this paper comes out of the Arts-Humanities tradition there isn’t a section in the paper

that addressed methods. It appears therefore to be predominantly a scholarly piece by an

insider that reflects a conversation between Lewis, the author, and a ‘member’ of the CPD

programme provided in UCL.

7. The role of academic developers in transforming Bologna regulations to a national and institutional context Gunnar Handal, Kirsten Hofgaard Lycke, Katarina Mårtensson, Torgny Roxå, Arne Skodvin & Tone Dyrdal Solbrekke To cite this article: Gunnar Handal, Kirsten Hofgaard Lycke, Katarina Mårtensson, Torgny Roxå, Arne Skodvin & Tone Dyrdal Solbrekke (2014) The role of academic developers in transforming Bologna regulations to a national and institutional context, International Journal for Academic Development, 19:1, 12-25, DOI: 10.1080/1360144X.2013.849254 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2013.849254

Academic developers (ADs) often participate in the implementation of

programmes or reforms in higher education. Sometimes they agree with these

and sometimes they disagree. This paper discusses possible agentic positions

during a genuine policy implementation – the National Qualification Framework

at a Norwegian university. Through reflexive interpretation, and by applying

concepts from ‘discursive institutionalism’ the process of implementation from

the national level to university departments is described and analysed. The

actions and arguments of the ADs involved in the process are presented and their

educational rationale is described. The ADs’ agency is discussed through

educational and political science concepts and in light of power and of a tension

between two competing world views: professional accountability and

professional responsibility.

Keywords: compliance; discursive institutionalism; qualifications framework;

reform implementation; resistance

Methods:

Our method is inspired by ‘reflexive interpretation’ (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2001);

we moved between theory and empirical data that were presented as a narrative

describing the implementation process. The next step involved collective and critical

discussions of the case. During this phase, we concentrated on gaining insights into

the rationale behind the ADs’ actions. By subsequently introducing Schmidt’s theory

on ‘discursive institutionalism’ (Schmidt, 2008), we highlighted the relationship

between policy and actions in an implementation process. Lastly, we applied International Journal for Academic Development 13

Downloaded by [University College Dublin] at 07:33 29 January 2016

perspectives on ‘power’ (Biesta, 2004, 2008) and professional ‘responsibility’ and

‘accountability’ (Englund & Solbrekke, 2011), revealing aspects of ADs’ agency

and different forms of power.

8. Creating a Culture of Appreciation for Faculty Development James P. Honan, Andrew Westmoreland, W. Mark Tew

- NO ABSTRACT

Methods: No section on methods, not surprisingly given the journal, yet it does bring data from

various surveys to bear on the argument being advanced—but here too is another example of a

different tradition at work—that is distinct from social science, but no less valid!

9. Faculty Development for Institutional Change: Lessons from an Advance Project Sandra Laursen & Bill Rocque To cite this article: Sandra Laursen & Bill Rocque (2009) Faculty Development for Institutional Change: Lessons from an Advance Project, Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 41:2, 18-26, DOI: 10.3200/CHNG.41.2.18-26 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/CHNG.41.2.18-26

- NO ABSTRACT

This is a report on the “Leadership Education for Advancement and Promotion” (LEAP) project, of

which there were several in various US institutions.

Methods:

In evaluating the LEAP project, we interviewed 44 tenuretrack faculty, across career stages and departments, who had participated in LEAP programs from 2003 to 2005. Our goal was to help the program directors refine their offerings, set priorities, and figure out how to sustain their programs when the external funding gave out. (p. 20)

10. Orientations to academic development: lessons from a collaborative study at a research‐led university Brenda Leibowitz , Francois Cilliers , Jacob du Plessis , Zuhayr Kafaar , Antoinette van der Merwe , Shaun Viljoen & Gert Young To cite this article: Brenda Leibowitz , Francois Cilliers , Jacob du Plessis , Zuhayr Kafaar , Antoinette van der Merwe , Shaun Viljoen & Gert Young (2011) Orientations to academic

development: lessons from a collaborative study at a research‐led university, International Journal for Academic Development, 16:1, 19-32, DOI: 10.1080/1360144X.2011.546214 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2011.546214

This study reports on a collaborative teaching enhancement project at a researchled

university, within the context of a focus on the first-year experience. It

demonstrates the kind of influence which a combination of managerial and

collegial approaches can have on the collaboration. It illustrates the importance of

working with a conscious understanding of the academic development

orientations underpinning an educational change initiative. In the study, academic

developers teamed up with lecturers from eight departments to embark on change

endeavours to enhance teaching and learning in the lecturers’ immediate settings.

The adoption of an action research-oriented, interdisciplinary and collaborative

approach to professional development was found to be appropriate at a researchled

institution. Contextual and cultural factors inherent to the disciplines,

departments and institution were shown to have an impact upon the involvement

of participants in the project.

Keywords: professional development; collaboration; research; first-year

experience; academic development

Methods: Action Research—working with 8 lecturers from different disciplines

The research design retained an action, research-oriented focus where the needs of the participants were

assessed, the process was described, outputs were tracked, data were analysed by the

CTL and, finally, the outcome was assessed by a smaller ‘writing team’, i.e. the

authors of this article. (p. 23)

Data collection

Data sources used were:

● Initial needs assessment interviews with each lecturer or module team participating

in the project.

● Minutes of all team meetings.

● Correspondence between participating lecturers and CTL members.

● A questionnaire completed by participating lecturers at the end of the first year

of implementation. (p. 23)

11.Betwixt and between: academic developers in the margins

Deandra Little & David A. Green To cite this article: Deandra Little & David A. Green (2012) Betwixt and between: academic developers in the margins, International Journal for Academic Development, 17:3, 203-215, DOI: 10.1080/1360144X.2012.700895 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2012.700895

Previously, the authors developed a theoretical framework drawing on an early

sociological study of migration to explore how marginality – being between cultures

– might account for academic developers’ ‘hybrid’ academic identities and

help them navigate institutional power dynamics. Based on data from semistructured

interviews, this empirical study reports on the extent to which the

model captures the structural tensions experienced by developers from multiple

countries in their working lives.

Keywords: academic developers; academic identities; higher education; marginality;

power dynamics

Methods:

… we conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 15 developers

working in institution-wide – rather than discipline-specific – ADUs, in three equal

clusters based on their prior academic disciplines: humanities (HUMA), science,

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), and ‘intramural’ (INTR) disciplines.

Each cluster included at least two countries and two types of institution

(public/private and teaching-/research-focused), and all interviewees were senior

enough to experience institutional tensions – mostly directors or program leaders.

Interviewees were working in Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA (p. 204)

12.Democracy or intervention? Adapting orientations to development Charles Neame To cite this article: Charles Neame (2013) Democracy or intervention? Adapting orientations to development, International Journal for Academic Development, 18:4, 331-343, DOI: 10.1080/1360144X.2012.711966 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2012.711966

Many institutional cultures resist change, and within universities academic

developers vary their response to such resistance, depending on the type of

change, the institution and their own characteristic styles, working preferences

and strategic judgements. Variables influencing the successful introduction of

innovation in academic practice include the inherent susceptibility of the institution

to innovation, the nature of the innovation and the approaches of the

change agents involved. This paper explores responses to resistant institutional

culture; it presents a dichotomous model of educational development orientations

which emerged from an action research project within a research-intensive

university and suggests that by adapting developmental orientations according to

context, developers can explicitly influence the responsiveness of members of

the institution to innovation in academic practice.

Keywords: educational development; orientation; innovation

Methods:

At its core was an action research

group of 10 colleagues, including the author (although 38 colleagues in total participated

in a variety of data-generating activities). PDP was identified as a case study

subject: it was a topical issue within the institution at the time, but one which was

vigorously contested and debated. (p. 339)

Other occasional participants were recruited from the academic staff into a flexible

network of colleagues: primarily course directors, but also others in positions of influence

regarding course quality and design. Some were advocates of PDP and some

were sceptics. The participants (core group and others) took part in a wide range of

activities over two academic years, including individual interviews, course directors’ meetings and meetings of the core action research group. (p. 339)

Yin (2003) proposes the case study as a method for exploring a phenomenon in

its context. The action research project, focused on the development of academic

practice relating to PDP in the context of a particular university, represents just such

a phenomenon in context. (p. 339)

13. Academic development as institutional leadership: An interplay of person, role, strategy, and institution

K. Lynn Taylor To cite this article: K. Lynn Taylor (2005) Academic development as institutional leadership: An interplay of person, role, strategy, and institution, International Journal for Academic Development, 10:1, 31-46, DOI: 10.1080/13601440500099985

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13601440500099985

Academic development is emerging as a complex and challenging leadership role. Academic

developers in Australia were interviewed to determine how they: (1) conceptualized

leadership; (2) saw themselves in leadership roles; and (3) effected leadership and change

through academic development work. The results revealed that, in an academic development

context, leadership is not defined as a prescribed set of characteristics.

Rather, a synergy among variable characteristics of the person, the academic development

role, development strategies, and institutional context determined successful practice and

leadership in any given institution. In this complex dynamic, Parker Palmer’s

conceptualization of the roles of the teacher can provide a unifying framework for

conceptualizing the diverse work in which we engage. Many of the characteristics of

academic development practice, including our leadership roles, can be mapped directly onto

Palmer’s concepts of identity and integrity, and of knowing, teaching, and learning

community.

Methods:

To understand better the evolving leadership functions of the academic development role, a

study was undertaken to explore the leadership experiences of 23 academic development

specialists in 17 Australian universities. This study was designed to identify the ways in which

they: (1) conceptualized leadership; (2) saw themselves in leadership roles; and (3) effected

leadership and change through academic development. (p. 32)

In all, 23 academic developers practicing in 17 universities in Australia

agreed to participate in the study. (p. 33)

Over a six-month period in 2003, each developer participated in a single, one-to-one,

semi-structured interview with the researcher. Interviews (Appendix A) were 60–90 minutes

in length, and included questions about: participants’ experience as academic developers;

how they characterized leadership in university settings and in their own academic development

practices; examples of their leadership roles; and strategies used to exercise leadership

and facilitate change in their institutions. Each interview was audio-taped and transcribed

verbatim. A first-stage content analysis of the transcripts was conducted to identify major

themes in the data. These major themes formed a coding grid that was then applied to each

data file in a detailed content analysis and framed the presentation of the results. (p. 33)

14. Leadership practices for student engagement in challenging conditions

Vicki Trowler To cite this article: Vicki Trowler (2013) Leadership practices for student engagement in challenging conditions, Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 17:3, 91-95

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2013.789455

Student Engagement is the investment of time, effort and other relevant resources by both students and their institutions intended to optimise the student experience and enhance the learning outcomes and development of students, and the performance and reputation of the institution. As such, it has affective, behavioural and cognitive dimensions, which may manifest congruently or oppositionally. The current popularity of the concept derives from a large body of evidence suggesting that student engagement improves a range of desirable outcomes. A study funded by the Leadership Foundation to uncover leadership practices that enhanced student engagement revealed the importance of climate, resourcing, communication and values. The article concludes with some suggestions of how the findings might usefully be applied in a higher education setting.

Keywords: Student engagement; leadership; student partnership; higher

education

Methods: Interviews—with 23 leaders in as many institutions in HE/ UK

15. Transformative educational development scholarship: beginning with ourselves Susan Wilcox To cite this article: Susan Wilcox (2009) Transformative educational development scholarship: beginning with ourselves, International Journal for Academic Development, 14:2, 123-132, DOI: 10.1080/13601440902970007 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13601440902970007

Self-study is a process of examining our beliefs and actions and exploring

questions of practice that arise in particular contexts; the provisional answers we

formulate present implications for practice. If we approach self-study guided by

an ethic of authenticity, it can be an effective approach to the scholarship of

teaching and learning, and has the potential to counter the performative culture of

our institutions and transform higher education. The paper provides an

introduction to self-study for educational developers who are interested in this

challenging yet rewarding approach to scholarly inquiry. Educational developers

are encouraged to use self-study to explore, improve – and perhaps transform –

their own practice, and to contribute to the growth of academic development as a

field of study and practice.

Methods:

Conceptual/ practical—introduction to self-study--

16. Avoiding compliance and resistance through collaboration? A Belgian teaching portfolio case

Pascale Wouters, Mieke Clement, Mariane Frenay, Herman Buelens & Annelies Gilis To cite this article: Pascale Wouters, Mieke Clement, Mariane Frenay, Herman Buelens & Annelies Gilis (2014) Avoiding compliance and resistance through collaboration? A Belgian teaching portfolio case, International Journal for Academic Development, 19:1, 26-36, DOI: 10.1080/1360144X.2013.848359 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2013.848359

In this paper, the authors describe the implementation process of a teaching

portfolio at a Belgian university. The case is intriguing because it departs

substantially from what others have described as the typical antagonistic way in

which academic developers interact with formal leaders. Rather than being

caught in an edgy game of compliance and resistance, the actors present

themselves as partners in a collaborative process throughout three consecutive

phases. To interpret this process, reference is made to a collaborative framework

from a social psychology perspective that could help avoid compliance and

resistance.

Keywords: academic development; academic developer; collaboration;

compliance; resistance

Methods:

The case we present is not an historical account, nor is it based on rigorous

document analysis or systematic data collection. Rather, it is a reconstruction of

what happened at UCL when the teaching portfolio was introduced, based on an

iterative discussion among the authors of this paper. (p. 27)

The initial working description of sub-theme 5 was as follows:

Sub-theme 5. Institutional Leadership & the Autonomy of ADs. As institutional strategic planning by its

leadership has given greater prominence to internationalisation, competitiveness and being ‘research

intensive’ with all that is implied in that phrase, has the work of ADs become more prescribed, more imbued

with the mission and strategic plans of their respective institutions. The other side of this coin is, in such

circumstances, to what extent have the roles and responsibilities of ADs been enhanced or circumscribed and

prescribed, or has their repositioning enabled them as agents of change to exercise influence on institutional

leadership as key internal players.

In selecting papers for this theme, attention was paid to accounts of ADs leadership potential both

in terms of their more immediate responsibilities and how these are increasingly taking on an

institution wide remit, with attendant (re-) positioning within the organisation as a whole, their

relationships with formal institutional leaders, and the (re-) negotiation of their strategic remit,

visibility, power and responsibility as part of the process of competence building, not only their own,

their colleagues, but extending too to institutional leaders, their learning and their capability to lead

in desired directions—thus encompassing formation of ADs, of academics, of organisations and their

senior leadership.

NARRATIVE—REVIEW OF ABOVE PAPERS

Bamber and Anderson (2012) begin this paper by painting a shift in the culture of Uk

institutions from QA (quality Assurance) to Quality Enhancement (QE), which they capture

as follows: “Kogan (2002, p. 87) described as: ‘the shift in power from senior academics and

their departments to the central institution and the dominance of systems over academic

values’” (p. 5). As a consequence of this shift in power towards the centre, in a more

hierarchical manner, ADs were in a sense caught in the tension between institutional

requirements and established academic norms. The paper “offers some suggestions for

conceptual and practical tools for doing so.

Whatever about distinctions between QA and QE, the climate and context in HE, though variable, nevert heless

reflects the following:

However, as we have seen, rather than working with the uncertainties and supercomplexity (Barnett, 2000; Lea &

Callaghan, 2008) of academic practices, the managerialist roots of QA-related evaluation link it to targets,

specification of outputs and performance measurement (Cuthbert, 2011). (Bamber & Anderson, 2012, p. 8)

Data were generated by survey yielding a 25% response rate—see above. The key question was – HOW DO YOU

EVALUATE YOUR OWN TEACHING?

The evidence points to a commitment to evaluate their own teaching but in the absence of institutional support this

remains largely ad hoc:

As can be readily identified from this brief summary of the results, respondents

acknowledged the desirability of evaluation, but with appropriate support from the

institution or school, particularly a ‘commitment to actually doing something’ with

evaluation data. (p. 11)

While in the case of other studies, ‘institutionalised distrust’ was cited, this was not the case here. Nevertheless, there

was a sense that there “was apparent was lack of alignment with institutional policies” thus rendering the notion of

self-evaluation rather difficult—against what criteria?

From the perspective of ADs and their work, it is critically important that they are aware of how their academic

colleagues evaluate their work, Thus:

… most evaluation is going on in the bottom right-hand corner of the diagram; this means that academic

staff largely decide for themselves what they evaluate, and how they go about evaluating it, and use the

information they receive for reflective purposes, rather than necessarily converting it into a format that

facilitates QA reporting. (p. 12)

Instead, the significance and importance of autonomy and discretion regarding evaluation, by whom and what, and for

what purpose centralises the tension between individual professional motivation and institutional prescription—an

important thread running through the review as matters get scaled up, institutionalised, systematised etc., benefits can

be squeezed as systems become prescriptive. Thus:

If individuals evaluate their practice because they are self-motivated and wish to improve what their students

experience, this powerful driver from the bottom right-hand corner of the diagram might be weakened or lost

by a strong pull from the top left-hand corner. (p. 12)

The following summarises well my own experience of this shift from self-evaluation to institutional instruments and

the consequent distancing between the individual and the negative spiral this creates. Consequently:

However, the questionnaire is often unpopular for a number of reasons: staff do not like standardised

questionnaires, as they don’t ask quite the right questions in quite the right way for their practices, and are

seen as a management instrument. If institutional questionnaires are put online, everyone forgets they are

there. Students are resistant to filling in questionnaires, returns are low, and so data are incomplete. Pressure

on staff time means that scant attention may be paid to analysing the responses, so the whole exercise risks

falling into disuse. In the survey, 15 respondents indicated that they were using ‘the’ university

questionnaire; this means that another 35, the majority, were not. (p. 13)

Thus, there is a kind of conflict of interest or proxy war going on between individual and institution, with important

consequences for ADs and the latter influence becomes more pronounced.

The survey responses have confirmed this point: “individuals wish to evaluate their learning and teaching, and

institutions need to demonstrate the value of their work, but the two activities may not be aligned” (pp. 14-15).

The authors conclude that based on the evidence they provide, there is “a case for separating out evaluation for

assurance and evaluation for enhancement” (p. 15).

The authors conclude with a series of challenging questions, central to which is whether or not it is part of the remit

of ADs to challenge orthodox views among managers regarding evaluation—and in the process re-negotiate a more

appropriate balance between QA and QE.

Although the previous paper is about evaluation, it connects with the next one here—(Blackmore & Blackwell, 2006)

addresses the issue of strategic leadership for ADs, thus connecting with the final question posed above—as to the

brokerage role of ADs institutionally. These authors argue that the core thesis of the paper is that:

“… that there is immense value in an integrated conception of the faculty role, and that academic development can

and should assist faculty in managing their work in an integrated way” (p. 373).

The authors argue that the role of ADs is in a state of flux within institutions, and while various efforts, both top

down and bottom up have sought to alter and regulate the role in various ways, they argue nevertheless that it is

important to avoid fragmentation, thus:

It has been suggested that overcoming faculty role fragmentation is the major task for academic developers

(Rowland, 2003). We argue that a cohering approach would bring a number of benefits. Some aspects of the

faculty role, particularly teaching and research, can inform and reinforce each other, if firm links are

deliberately made (Blackmore & Fraser, 2003). (Blackmore and Blackwell, 2006, p. 375)

This set of pressures to be productive on all fronts, part of the intensification and fragmentation-specialisation wit hin

universities, presents particular challenges to those who have leadership roles within AD units or centres, and the

authors capture this when they state: “Heads may find themselves mediating between the ‘realities’ of institutional life

on the one hand, and the beliefs and values of faculty on the other” (p. 376). There is a consequent shift from

individual learning to organisational learning.

In terms of the 11 interviewees (see methods above), the following picture is painted of who they were, their

background, while there was little or no evidence of preparation for their ‘managerial’ role.

Heads came from a wide range of academic and work backgrounds: there was no common pattern. Some,

but not all, had Ph.D.s, usually in disciplines only loosely related to the staff development role. Some, but

not all, were trained to teach, but often for another sector. Few had experienced formal management

development and there was little evidence of structured reflection” (pp. 376-377).

They reported that due to this diversity, both within their units and beyond that “their role was a shifting

product of many interactions” (p. 377). The research identified a rather diverse range of skills and competencies that

the leadership role entails. These are:

Typically, a head requires:

● a range of abilities, including the ability to be analytical and to choose from a

number of possible actions;

● political awareness, together with an ability to communicate ideas in various ways;

● to have been in the organisation a long time, with good personal contacts and

knowledge of interpersonal dynamics;

● the ability to see beyond a frame of reference and to work at a higher level of

abstraction;

● pragmatism in decision making;

● awareness of a range of techniques, such as stakeholder analysis, risk analysis and

action planning;

● project management skills;

● clear goals, often setting targets;

● the ability to work at a national level.

In learning, a head:

● learns informally and ‘socially’;

● seeks and uses feedback, usually of an informal kind;

● is not currently engaged in formal learning;

● does not draw extensively on educational and organisational literatures in reflecting

on practice;

● does not often make use of an informal coaching and mentoring relationship.

The findings have many similarities with those of a study undertaken of 25 directors

of Australasian faculty development units (Hicks, 1997). (p. 377).

In the Hicks 1997 Australian study, the following profile of ADs emerged—it would be interesting to

compare this with the units/ centres in our study 20 years later— (Hicks, O. (1997) Career paths of

directors of faculty development units in Australian universities: the emergence of a species? International

Journal for Academic Development, 2(2), 56–63)

Hicks described the role as ‘emergent’. He noted that the average age was 51, that first degree

disciplines were evenly divided between humanities and social sciences on the one hand and

sciences on the other. Just over half the sample had completed PhDs, but only three of them in

education or a related discipline, whilst a quarter had no formal qualification of any kind in

education. Half of the sample had begun working life as school teachers, almost all in secondary

schooling. (pp. 377-‘8)

It may be necessary also to look at an earlier Australian study—or at least be aware of it: A study of 71 Australasian

academic developers—not just heads of units (Fraser, 1999) also shows considerable variety. (Fraser, K. (1999)

Australasian academic developers’ conceptions of the profession, International Journal of Academic Development,

6(1), 54–64).

Having indicated at some length, the proliferation of national/ international organisations etc since the 1990s in

particular, and a general effort through these bodies and agencies to ‘professionalise’ the role of ADs by seeking a

uniform qualification or set of standards, there appears to be resistance to the ‘one size fits all’ as being inadequate to

capture and allow for diversity. Here they turn to the Fraser study mentioned above and state:

Noting the range of issues that interest educational developers in general, Fraser concludes that an

accreditation scheme would need to recognise ‘the diverse career paths which people took to enter the field,

the wide range of areas in which members work, and the subsequent diversity of professional development

needs that members have’ (Fraser, 1999, p. 97). (p. 379)

Again, 25 years later, it would be interesting to see if this continues to be the case or if internal pressures have

increased sufficiently that at the institutional level, whatever about internationally, uniformity is being imposed, with

particular challenges to the autonomy of ADs.

As the authors themselves indicate, in light of their advocacy for a ‘holistic’ approach, while recognising diversity,

they turn their attention to the leadership implications when they state:

In the light of this, what might a leadership role in the development of academic practice look like? We

consider what leadership practices might be appropriate in an academic development approach, what

knowledge base might sustain t and what beliefs and values might inform it. We also suggest how one

might prepare for it and remain proficient in it. (p. 380)

The authors are highly critical of what they regard as a literature that is overly focused on teaching and learning to the

detriment of a more holistic approach to AD. Although they readily recognise what this has come to be the case given

the backgrounds of ADs and the evolution of the field, they nevertheless suggest that leadership should be much more

broadly based and so too the role of ADs:

Instead, leadership in academic development requires an understanding of research, teaching, management,

consultancy and a range of other aspects of academic work, and of how they do and might interrelate. It

requires also an understanding of the variability of faculty roles. Differences may come about through the

nature of academic disciplines and their social organisation in departments and faculties. Fluctuations may

occur through the varying stages of an individual’s career for a large number of personal and professional

reasons. A generic approach that assumes that all have the same concerns and motivations, and that these are

unchanging over a career, is not likely to be successful. (p. 380)

They go on to make a particular case for a diversity of expertise and a variety of experiences etc for ADs while

recognising that within their organisations there needs to be greater appreciation of the particularities of the role ADs

play, thus:

Academic developers are, however, a special case, made more so by the specialisation of other

support staff, who are not generally obliged to consider the impact of one academic activity on

another. Academic developers are also distinctive in that their concern is with faculty and their

departments’ broad capabilities, as well as with the ability to undertake specific activities. (p. 381)

I’m very conscious at this point that I’ve quoted extensively from this paper, but my sense is that its content is

important, both in terms of its content, and also in terms of shaping our thinking regarding possible interventions.

Thus, for example, having read the following quote and its significance for communities of practice and thus also for

ADs roles etc, should our intervention, whatever than might be, require triple loop learning as integral and then use

our ‘virtual community’ and the deliberative process within it, to consider what that looks like in practice—(at this

juncture, I think so!).

Leadership in academic development is also about facilitating social or group learning,

often at an organisational level, beyond the individual focus of many staff developers.

The learning organisation literature, from its early days (Pedler et al., 1991;

Senge, 1993), stresses the need for organisations to create the conditions in which

reflexive, flexible individuals may constantly learn and develop, and thus enable the

institution to develop. At the organisational level it seeks to go beyond ‘single loop

learning’, that is, improvements within existing paradigms, to ‘double loop learning’,

challenging the assumptions of existing paradigms and theories that are embedded in

practice (James, 1997), and finally to ‘triple loop’ learning that radically questions the

principles on which the organisation is founded, particularly appropriate during

dramatic change, when the organisation may need to transform itself (Tann, 1995,

pp. 48–51). Many have suggested that this literature has particular relevance in a

university, where much that is learnt is complex and unpredictable (Tann, 1995;

James 1997; Duke, 2002). It is a long-term approach, welcoming variety, diversity,

contradiction and paradox. (p. 381)

The paper then goes on to argue for the importance of evidence based practice in universities and that to

date much decision-making has not been done on the basis of evidence, thus another possible dimension of

ADs work is to target particular evidence within the organistion, to indicate how best to gather evidence

thus promote ‘good’ decision-making. Additionally there is recognition of the significance of personal

values, and how they work within the organisation through a policy lens—consider the following

They conclude that:

… leadership implies a movement towards policy and strategy.

However, such a movement need not mean the adoption of compliant managerialism,

and indeed it should not, if it is to encourage double and triple loop learning, notwithstanding

the managerial role and responsibility that heads have within their own unit

(to ensure high quality in all its provision). (p. 384)

Finally, some references here in this paper may be particularly relevant if we choose to look at some of the

issues above.

Bluteau and Krumins (2008) take a different perspective on the work of ADs—by focusing on creativity,

rewards and recognitions as a means of promoting academic excellence, they seek t o identify the

implications of this approach for ADs—fundamentally connected to the issue of their autonomy and

leadership within ‘learning organisations’.

That said, this paper may be more relevant to Theme 2—technology since it states:

Although the Coventry CETL adopts a quality process adapted from a toolkit produced by the Reusable

Learning Object CETL (RLO 2008), this article does not seek to contribute to the product/quality

debate, however, instead focusing on the individual experiences and developments of

the academics that have engaged with the process. (p. 415)

The substantive focus of the paper is –

…organised around key themes that emerged from the research: technology and fear of e-learning;

time, space and workload pressures; motivation, reward and recognition, and finally what this means in

terms of institutional impact. (p. 415)

Background to this paper is the setting up of various organisations on the UK (CETL, CiPEL) with funding

through HEFCE to focus on T&L but with an emphasis by CiPEL in particular on designing resources for

online teaching. Additional activities included: “activity are to build research capacity and to disseminate

findings on how e-approaches have broken down some of the more traditional methods of teaching and

learning” (p. 416).

This is what the process involved

The following statement however indicates the recurring tension between intrinsic motivation coupled with

professional autonomy as opposed to a more prescriptive managerialist approach, when the authors state:

it was hoped that the adoption of this model would encourage academics to promote change from

within, which in turn should decrease risk of resistance and other barriers to change. However,

Beckhard also suggests that this could be a weak model without support from senior management

endorsing top down change. Nearly forty years later Davis and Fill (2007) continue to concur with the

sentiment. (p. 417)

However, in too many instances, secondments, to free up time for individuals to be creative has not happened,

since “there is no-one available to help with their increasingly heavy workloads” (p. 418), a common problem in

my experience with giving talented individuals greater responsibility!

With a focus on creativity, amidst apprehension and feeling inadequate, a crucial element was the collaboration of

academic/ secondees with educational technologists—and it was this dynamic that led to the view:

The experience of becoming rooted in the conception of a creative experience is a

self-fulfilling journey that enables the materialisation of increased self appreciation

and value. It is argued that even for those secondees who struggled with confidence

and self doubt throughout the process, the end result enabled self appreciation as the

final tangible product is unveiled, presented and subsequently utilised within an

academic setting. (p. 420)

The paper talks about creativity and its promotion and emergence without indicating what that consisted of,

while the issue of being seconded, typically for a day per week, did not work due to workload issues, thus

secondees suggested shorter secondments for blocks of time as a means of dealing with this, but I doubt if this

would resolve the problem.

There was general acceptance that financial reward was not a good motivator, while the use of resources for

secondments remained problematic. When turning to the issue of recognition, the approval of peers and

managers was seen as most significant.

What emerges is the potential institutional dissonance that is created with the secondment model, as managers often

have difficulty dealing with ‘filling the gaps’ created on such occasions, thus there is a perception that management

practice contributes to individual stress, and this then heightens tension rather than releasing creativity or contributing

to competence building. As an aside, it is clear from the evidence here that the research was conducted in an old

Poly where there has been a stronger controlling managerial culture, that seems unhelpful in terms of what the

project sought to achieve. Nevertheless, it draws attention to the issue of institutional culture and how ADs work

fits within it.

Nevertheless, the authors hold out for what they call an institutional ‘tipping point ‘where there is sufficient critical

mass of individual effort that combined alters the culture. They conclude that “the need to involve senior managers

in addressing the issues related to releasing staff for space to be creative is vital” (p. 424) and this is a significant

‘finding’ since it highlights the potentially pivotal role of ADs in being bridge builders in cultural change

between senior leadership and faculty members.

In addition to the above ‘findings’ the authors also suggest that “A key factor in facilitating creativity in academics

was the introduction of learning technologists” (p. 324) but in my experience this too has potential to create a

new kind of turf war as to where responsibilities begin and end particularly between what more traditionally has

been named as IT support and the more recent ‘educational technologist’. Additionally, “more creative ways of

developing reward need to be considered” (p. 324) but this may vary considerably institutionally as well as

between different sectors of the HE landscape.

Boerboom et al (2009) is a paper from Medical Teacher that surveyed 250 academic staff in a vetinary school in

the Netherlands (see methods above) regarding a move away from didactic teaching to something more

approximating to more student centred approaches, using a particular framework.

Results of this brief paper suggest that for younger faculty the FD progamme had a positive impact on –

The regression analysis revealed significant positive effects of the completion of the FD programme on perceived competence in the following teaching roles: Person as Teacher, Counsellor, Content Expert and Scholar, with regression coefficients of 0.27, 0.25, 0.23 and 0.21, respectively.

However, impact was less so on members of faculty with more than 14 years experience. Additionally, since the FD programme tended to emphasise reflection rather than assessment, the authors conclude that their competence in assessment remained relatively undisturbed. From a methodological perspective they acknowledge that self-reporting is a limitation of the study and more indepth interviews with teachers is necessary to gain further insight into changing pedagogical practice. Brew and Cahir (2014) focus on a more contemporary phenomenon, intensification and performativity, though they do not use those words, while they do draw attention to increasing government interference in terms of policy for the sector, often in a climate of a further squeeze on public funding, thus:

Academics and academic developers are required to change direction midstream; responding to new

learning and teaching policies before the previous one is fully understood, let alone

embedded. The speed of change does not make concessions for the time it takes to

implement even within one institution, let alone across the whole sector. (p. 341).

As a consequence of such policy churn, how can the work of ADs save itself from being ‘all over the

place’, to be more strategic thus despite policy turbulence can promote more sustainable developments

through a variety of initiatives, the authors’ question becomes: “how can learning and teaching initiatives

become sustainable? This paper sets out to address this question” (p. 342).

This paper, Australian, provides a backdrop to the study by drawing attention to various policy documents – in the

first instance the Bradley Report (2008) that sought to promote greater synergy between research and teaching while

more recent policy documents have sought to dovetail more university education and preparation for work—in a move

replicated internationally to ‘vocationalise’ HE. This is reflected in their observation: “The recent switch in

national teaching priorities from a research–teaching relationship to an emphasis on work-integrated

learning exemplifies this” (p. 343).

They identify 3 interrelated complex elements of the process—research-based teaching, research based

learning as well as the scholarship of teaching and learning, and this takes time to implement and take hold

in an institution to the point where:

… complexities of these three elements were not recognised, which further illustrates how the

implementation of learning and teaching policies is not only complex, but also takes substantial time and

energy. This will be familiar to many academic developers. (p. 344)

Drawing on the work of Bauman regarding ‘liquid modernity’ and the etymology of the term

‘sustainable’ these authors argue that: “Sustainability, … includes aspects of transformation, adaptation,

flexible capacity, and manageability. It also involves an active strategy” (p. 347) and this has obvious

implications for the work of ADs, and their positioning within universities as evolving organisational

entities.

Such a necessity is spelled out more generally in the following:

It is a necessity for educators to constantly ‘negotiate their way in an environment that is

constantly changing, often in ways that have been largely unforeseen’ (Lawler & Sillitoe, 2010, p.

43). Hence, the capacity to be strategic is not only imperative for change management (Lawler &

Sillitoe, 2010) but also for the implementation of new institutional initiatives to secure government

funding. (p. 347)

So, it appears, arising out of all of this, and ‘touring’ the US and UK to see what was being done to

promote undergraduate research in particular, the goalposts were shifted. As a consequence the authors

took the following initiative—to sustain and support the further promotion and sustainability of

undergraduate participation in and conduct of research, in a context of a change of policy. Thus:

The website (www.undergraduateresearchaustralia.com) provides useful artifacts, protocols, and resources

to help develop research-based experiences for undergraduate research” (p. 348).

Please note, beyond this, no further indication is provided re methods/ research design.

Reproduced here are the findings of this paper that seem to me most relevant to the review on hand—namely the

impact on the work of ADs, and their ongoing repositioning within their universities-

As mentioned above, many developers support their institution in implementing

strategic priorities, and this also is unlikely to change. What will undoubtedly

change, however, is what those priorities are. One implication is that academic

development units and directors need to be mindful of this in allocating staff to

particular initiatives. It has implications for the training of academic developers, for

managing their expectations and for the research that they pursue. (p. 349)

Where a development unit supports institutional priorities and strategies, the research of many developers

is likely to be tied to them. (p. 349).

And around issues of sustainability, there are important implications for a more strategic and detached

perspective by ADs, that give them an important strategic role well beyond the confines of T&L,

summarised as follows:

Sustainability in academic development points to a different kind of mindset. It

means that developers have to have a broad perspective on the higher education

landscape, to be aware of issues that are being talked about in the media, in government

reports, and the like. It also means they need to approach current initiatives

with an element of detachment, seeing them as examples of broader trends. This is

not to say that they should stay at the level of generalities and, for example, develop

initiatives and resources only of a general teaching and learning nature. Yet, it does

mean that policies have to be viewed in the contexts of their underlying assumptions

about the role of the higher education teacher, the views of the student, and the role

and function of universities and how these relate to broader societal trends. (p. 350).

Despite a lack of clear methodology, in terms of future orientation for the work of ADs, this paper and its

conclusions are particularly significant since through a combined lens of policy, change, sustainability,

some important pointers for future are provided. The following and final quotation, in my view, reinforces

this perspective, where it states:

A critical issue is whether developers can hold on to the values and principles of

their profession. These might include, for example, the value of a scholarly approach

to academic development work, the importance of a consultative approach, an emphasis

on institutional and individual learning at all levels, facilitating rather than telling,

responsiveness to others and so on (see Harland & Pickering, 2010, and Smyth,

2003, for fuller discussions of the role of values in academic development work). (p. 350).

It gains in significance since it draws attention to the significance of values and principles.

The authors conclude with the following observation:

Our aim has been to encourage thinking on these issues at the level of teaching and learning

development. Further research is now needed to explore implications for managing

change more generally and how institutional structures and systems can be managed

in more sustainable ways. (p. 351).

Finally, the first named author (Angela Brew) is very well published in this field and has worked

extensively in UK and Oz.

This next paper by Elton (2009) arguably gains in significance as it is published in Arts and Humanities in

HE—a journal making a rare appearance in this review, thus it brings a different perspective, while as its

title suggests, is focused on ‘the scholarship of teaching and learning’, and in particular between the nexus

between teaching, learning and research- as Wissenschaft. Thus the paper’s focus is-

… a recognition of the importance of the continuing professional development of academics

in teaching and learning (CPD in HE) and the possible role in this development of the

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL). (p. 247)

Against a back drop of appeal to the Humboltian tradition (1810) where close association between

teaching and research was envisaged, in contrast to 20th century developments whereby the latter has

been privileged over the former, the hypothesis of the paper is that SoTL in more recent times

presents an opportunity to redress this imbalance—thus “Humboldtian approach to the

work of universities which is – or should be – fundamental to SoTL” (p. 248). The authors assert

across the 20th century a pincer movement combining pressure on the university regarding research as

well as pressure from Governments as a kind of prescriptive interference—thus they recognise the

tension as follows:

Humboldtian university: namely that universities best serve the state and the

communities in which they are embedded, as well as serving scholarship

(Wissenschaft), if university staff have maximum freedom of action as individuals

and in small groups. (p. 249)

They describe such policy climates as “constant and petty interference from outside that universities

suffer from at present” (p. 249). Against this general tradition and how it has been used/ abused in the

intervening years, UCL designed a programme that allowed participants to appropriate PBL

themselves thus scaffolding them to address a ‘problem’ identified by them rather than being

presented with a problem to solve; an approach that had been tried in some places previously

including the Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT). See p. 252 for outline of the UCL programme—

with its emphasis on collaboration between course ‘members’ and tutors, where they undertook mini-

research projects paying attention to assessment and standards.

Here are the ‘highlights’ of the paper’s conclusions:

“The most important – and possibly least expected – conclusion relates to the

primacy of scholarship in universities …. A second – and arguably equally important – conclusion

relates to the provision of appropriate continuing professional development in teaching and

learning. The traditional view, although not always expressed so blatantly, was that one improved in

teaching through imitation of role models – one taught, as one had been taught by academics that

taught, as they had been taught, by . . . , an apostolic succession, going back to the middle ages. (p.

256)

The integration through SoTL of both research and teaching and learning,

and of discipline-specific and generic components in both, has received a

considerable impetus through the SoTL movement, as has the need for the

CPD of academics; however, there is a long way to go. (p. 257)

Finally, a word must be said about interdisciplinarity. Traditionally,

universities have been oriented pre-eminently towards single disciplines, …. Genuine

interdisciplinary work must grow organically out of the requirements of research and the transfer to

teaching; in some ways it is already doing the former, but rarely, if ever, the latter. The

multidisciplinarity of modular degrees is more likely to confuse students than to

make their degrees interdisciplinary. (p. 258).

The paper is an insightful if cautionary tale about the contemporary university, and raises fundamental

Qs regarding the role of ADs in such circumstances—perhaps the key is research on teaching with

expertise in teaching, learning, assessment and leadership with an orientation towards

interdisciplinarity.Is it possible to create a PBL as an intervent ion, with ontribbutions from the ADs

themselves that seek to promote this combination in some way, that, as indicated above, perpetuates

some elements of a university’s traditions, while creating new synergies between teaching, research,

and interdisciplinarity?

As the next paper Handal et al (2014) is a Norwegian contribution, and already ‘known’ to the ‘team’,

I will not dwell on it here too much but provide a summary of key considerations nevertheless.

The paper addresses the tension between the task of implementing a policy initiative and the value

positions of ADs themselves, asking, through the lens of ‘discursive institutionalism’ and the tension

between accountability and responsibility as to whether or not ADs ‘take a stand’ or largely comply?

(the National Qualification Framework (NQF) in Norwegian higher education (HE),)

In order to explore these tension in some depth, the authors create the compliance- resistance continuum,

recognising that there are degrees of both, not simply either or.

The paper then goes on to describe the various phases of policy development, amendment through to

the implementation phase where through the agency of the ADs there were elements of adaptation and

localisation, consistent with institutional traditions as well as professional values etc, thus underlining

the agentic nature of ADs work that can neither be categorised as compliant nor resistant—rather

agentic, captured in the following:

… it became even clearer than in the first two phases that the

ADs sought to facilitate and support the implementation. They did not argue against

the NQF, as the university now could apply the NQF in a way that seemed

constructive for educational processes at the department level. (p. 16)

The approach of ADs is collaborative and dialogical, based on mutual recognition of complementary but

equal status and recognition of pedagogical expertise and disciplinary knowledge on the part of faculty.

There follows another major analytical section, reviewed through a lens created from aspects of Schmidt’s

work (2008) on discursive institutionalism and Biesta’s work on power as complexity reduction. This

section is worthy of being read, particularly since it has been suggested and discussed that Schmidt’s work

might provide an analytical lens for elements of analysis within the project as a whole. The framework is

useful and provides an important means of unpacking the processes under discussion. From a lit review

perspective, one of the key emergent ‘findings’ is that:

This retrospective analysis indicates that the ADs engaged in communicative

more than in coordinative discourses, that they were focused more on cognitive than

on normative statements, and that they particularly involved themselves explicitly at

the policy level, with little reference to the programme or the more general

philosophy behind it. But it also shows that their efforts were more successful when

they acted closer to academic practice, indicating a kinship with academic values. (p. 22)

Viewed through an accountability/ responsibility lens the authors conclude that the policy reform effort

and the role played by ADs within it is reflective of:

… a programme seeking control over internal academic affairs, a

programme that possibly strives to change prevailing academic values to become

more aligned with economic productivity than with critical thinking and personal

growth, … (p. 23).

Revisiting their analysis through a resistance-compliance level, the authors state that they were

unsuccessful in terms of influencing national policy, while at the institutional level, their agency resulted

in-

The most important element of resistance was, however, that the ADs

managed to influence the guidelines to departments about implementation and

thereby maintained scope for local freedom to adjust the NQF to disciplinary

differences. As a result, they re-expanded the complexity of the task and increased

academic freedom. (p. 23)

They conclude by pointing to the significance of learning from experience through collective reflective

engagement, a recommendation they extent to all ADs in these more challenging times.

As a little addendum to this paper, I suggest that greater clarity around the issue of policy creation and

implementation would help. In this regard, an understanding of the policy process, as suggested by Cuban,

as ‘continuous adaptation’ as opposed to faithful adoption, also leaves the door open for more agency on

the part of key actors, in this instance ADs.

In this next paper, Honan, Westmoreland and Tew (2013). The declared intention of this paper is to

broaden “the discussion of faculty development that the following pages are dedicated. Specifically, what are the wider institutional concerns for the successful accomplishment of faculty development?” (p. 33) In a recent study, arguably the scale of the challenge regarding faculty development and what that entails, is summed in in the comments of 1 of 29 interviewees who were interviewed for the study. Here’s the observation, stereotypical as it might be!

Our nation has an education model whose calendar was based on the 19th-century agricultural calendar, whose classroom is based on a 20th-century industrial model, trying to produce a high-quality product in a 21st-century, global, technology-infused environment. We are never going to be successful until we can completely disrupt the model of our classroom, and our model of teaching, that has been pervasive in the entire continuum from kindergarten through graduate degree program” (Immerwahr 2011, 16). (p. 34-‘5)

The authors quote from a number of reports that indicate clearly trustees and governing authorities of HE institutions are much more preoccupied with finances than with faculty CPD while others too indicate that the quality of student learning or learning outcomes are not the responsibility of trustees, the point being that in such a climate it is a challenge to get faculty cpd higher up on the agenda. However, this too gives rise, from an insider perspective as to who should lead this challenge, and the extent to which it might be led by ADs, and how they might position themselves accordingly? The authors then point to initiatives in Indiana that have provided CPD for trustees to raise awareness regarding the quality of teaching and learning across all HE institutions in the State. They point out that trustees are frequently appointed to boards for their financial or business expertise, but argue that this is no longer adequate:

This lack of preparation and understanding of academic culture may be a reasonable explanation for the lack of trustee involvement in discussions of educational quality, but in a period of increased public demand for accountability from higher education and its governing board that excuse is no longer suffi cient” (AGB 2010, 4). (p. 36)

However, well intentioned, the move towards trustee enlightenment, if this results in a set of measures, to reduce the complexity mentioned in the previous paper, this may be one good reason for keeping trustees away from faculty CPD!! However, in a more accountability driven and consumer sensitive climate, HE institutions are under siege—as evidenced by reports that suggest they are ‘adrift’ in a sea of mediocrity—at

least in the US—as suggested by reports such as “The 2011 publication of Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses, by Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa” (p. 38). This is very much an advocacy piece, and is rather US focused. Nevertheless, it is difficult to disagree with the sentiment expressed as follows even if responsibility to make it happen is rather opaque—driven by a presidential vision and faculty buy in— Developing better teaching skills throughout the faculty will require an investment of resources. But institutions should not view these investments as burdensome. To the contrary, expenditures for professional development of the faculty should lead to transformed learning outcomes. (p. 40) The authors also assert that it is necessary to bring bursars on board, to ensure financial support for cross campus faculty development—though again it is not clear whose responsibility that is. However, what may be surprising is these bursar’s responses to the following question—

Chief financial officers and chief business officers believed they contribute to an effective faculty development climate. To the statement “I am very involved in cultivating a climate of faculty development on my campus,” 44 percent of the total group disagreed or strongly disagreed, while 56 percent agreed or strongly agreed. (p. 41)

Additionally, this important and influential group, strongly rejected the proposition that they were responsible for cutting resources for CPD/ faculty development in times of shrinking budgets, thus:

They strongly rejected the notion that their office was responsible for reducing faculty development budgets during times of financial difficulty, [saying that this particular] responsibility squarely [rested] on the shoulders of the chief academic officers” (pp. 42-‘3)6

The following is the paper’s brief conclusion—my question regarding this is that the elephant in the room is who beyond president and bursar—who takes primary responsibility for faculty development within universities—and this question is ignored—but it does raise the issue of ADs role strategically in this new climate— As colleges and universities face a future of uncertain funding and demands for increased accountability and accessibility, colleges and universities that can accomplish faculty development not as an “add-on” but as an integral part of the fiber of the organization will position themselves to succeed. Such a comprehensive campus-wide culture will be achieved only by engaging campus resources that are not directly related to the classroom. Professional development of the faculty should be everyone’s everyday job. (p.44) The next article too comes from something of an ‘outlier’ of a journal, while its focus on change seems relevant here—(Laursen & Rocque, 2014)- it’s a REPORT ON THE LEAP PROJECT. Of general interest is the identified needs of academic staff across the various career stages,

summed up in the following graph

These considerations are widely illustrated in the report by quoting extensively from the 44

interview transcripts. Towards the end, the following conclusions are drawn, again without any

reference to whose responsibility faculty development actually is—in this regard, there is an

important leadership role for ADs, it seems to me, to articulate these needs and to indicate ways in

which these may be met, while navigating between individual/ faculty needs and institutional

strategic plans—an emerging leadership role, arguably illustrated in some respects by the agency of

the ADs evident in the Gunar et al 2014 paper above. Here’s the summary:

Implications for Action “How secure do we as individuals have to get before we start to really take on some of that changing of the system as part of our individual mandate, contributing to structural change?” —Monica, assistant professor in social sciences Faculty development can address first- and second-tier needs. It does so by providing individuals with opportunities to build their capacities, reflect on their careers, and explore options for longer-term professional growth, while also helping chairs succeed and departments improve communication and the quality of life. Programs that target first- and second-tier needs can also mix people across career cohorts, fostering connections as well as offering information or skills. These improved intellectual and personal connections can aid retention and productivity and may be especially helpful for women. They also help to build capacity within the institution for creativity and leadership. But to address third-tier needs, changes in policy and structures are needed. Faculty development can help in identifying these changes and making them effective, by strengthening feedback between faculty and policymakers, developing the awareness and skills of those who carry out policies, and helping to generate and evaluate experiments with broader models of faculty success. (p. 26)

The next paper, Leibowitz et al (2011), at least in its title seems a little more promising regarding the orientation of AD, thus also with implications for the changing nature of AD’s work. The backdrop to this paper, is RSA, and a tension between a top down managerialist approach to staff development and a more collegial and collaborative culture that makes much less distinction between the more experienced and the newly appointed academics—caught in the phrase: “managerialist and collegial approaches are in competition” (p. 20).

Given this tension, the research reported sets out to address and report on the following:

… is it feasible to combine a strategic and managerial approach towards educational

development with a collegial, researcher and community-of-enquiry approach? This question is

considered via a

study at Stellenbosch University, where an institution-wide project based on the

professional development of lecturers – ‘Improving teaching and learning in large

first-year classes’ – was implemented. This study highlights the lessons learnt by a

team of educational developers and academics who participated in the project. (p. 20)

The initiative, led by the CTL in Stellenbosch, was to improve the quality of teaching and learning among

first year students across the 10 faculties of the university through an AR project, thus purporting to

create appropriate synergy between managerialist and collegial approaches. In the process, they aimed

to—

1) To pilot a collaborative and research-based approach towards the professional

development of lecturers teaching large first-year modules.

(2) To implement innovative approaches towards improving teaching and learning

in key large first-year modules at the university.

(3) To demonstrate the value of lecturers and educational advisors working

together to solve educational challenges. (p. 20)

In setting the scene, the authors cite several papers included in this lit review, all of which point to issues

such as interdisciplinarity, collegiality and collaboration—Trowler, Brew, Gosling and others.

Eight module convenors or individual lecturers agreed to participate in the project,

representing the following disciplines: chemistry, economics, English, mathematics,

physics, private law, psychology and sociology.(p. 22)

Data analysis led to reporting on themes—the initiative as catalyst for CPD, initiatives that continued

after the project period, cultivated relationships between different disciplines as well as between CTL staff

and other colleagues, publicity and funding led to attention being given to the initiative—thus a kind of

advocacy re the importance of teaching, while there was more ambivalence regarding publishing about

teaching rather than one’s own discipline described by one participants as ‘career suicide’!

One of the more disappointing features of the initiative was the lack of a sense of a community of practice,

and the authors suggest that this was in part due to their lack of imposition of requirements regarding

reporting etc.—allowing more collegial considerations to trump more managerialist agenda. From the

participants’ perspectives, there was a certain coercion to their participation, while external pressures were

workloads and the status of teaching first year students.

The authors draw 4 conclusions:

The first of these was that a project built on the notion of partnerships between academic developers and

lecturers has significant potential to foster closer relationships between educational specialists and

lecturers, thus embedding educational change expertise within faculties. (p. 28)

The second lesson is with regard to the alignment of an educational change

initiative with the perceived priorities of a university. Where the priorities are formally aligned, this may well be conducive to the outcome of the initiative. (p. 29)

The third lesson is that the prevailing culture and norms of the disciplines, departments

and the university as a whole have a strong influence on the lecturers’ participation

in a change-oriented project. (p. 29)

Needless to say, this will vary considerably from one institution to the next and in a context where there

were as many as 2000 students in year one, enormous variation internally too in terms of workload and the

teaching and learning encounter.

A final lesson concerns academic development orientations and how these may

unwittingly undermine or complement each other. With regard to the change initiative

undertaken in this study, one orientation was managerial. The other orientation was

academic and collegial: doing things ‘as academics do’. Land (2004) sees these orientations

as in competition. We are not necessarily arguing that more than one orientation

(even seemingly diverse orientations) cannot co-exist within a change initiative.

We are arguing, however, for a more self-conscious understanding of these orientations

and of how they interrelate in order to influence change. (p. 30)

These findings underline the complex role played by ADs, and increasingly too the importance of their

strategic positioning in universities that increasingly are caught in the more traditional collegial

commitment and more competitive managerialist leadership agenda.

This next paper by Little and Green (2011) seems to belong in theme 3 Identity etc, while I include it here,

to read it, but also to see what insights it provides from a future orientation perspective and the possible

advantages conferred on ADs by cultivating a hybrid identity as a means of negotiating positionality,

power and influence within HE given changing times.

This paper opens with a powerful evocation through a variety of metaphors that capture the gutter,

marginality or hybridity or ‘migration’ of ADs to a ‘foreign’ land. Arising from this intellectual foreplay,

they argue that:

Academic development occupies a liminal space on this intramural–extramural continuum. Second,

structurally, ADUs are located on a vertical continuum between the upper administration

(university managers) and mainstream faculty (university teachers and

researchers). (p. 204)

The interviewees were asked about their own perceptions of their marginality/ gutter positioning, while the

2nd

half of the interview used Stonequist’s framework to put more structure on how they perceived their

role-identity and positioning—a theoretically strong paper.

The following provides a useful summary of perspectives around marginality and positionality as well as

influence:

Respondents largely found the description of structural marginality applicable to

varying degrees. Nine of 15 respondents offered favorable comments about the

model and about being located in a marginal space, describing academic development

as ‘another place’ that was neither administration nor faculty (HUMA02), as

an independent ‘middle territory’ where colleagues can make progress (STEM04)

or by describing positive perceptions of this space: as being privileged to ‘sit at all

levels’ (STEM01), as feeling special, ‘on the edge, on the outside’ (INTR05), and

as being considered ‘importantly marginal’ by the provost (HUMA01). (p. 205)

Here is the Stonequist model, reproduced here as this formed the 2nd

part of the interview as to whether or

not interviewees found the cateogrisations helpful

Their initial responses are summarised as follows:

… they all indicated that the framework described roles they find themselves taking when interacting

with multiple parties. Everyone easily identified with at least one of the roles, and when asked to

determine the usefulness of the model, two-thirds of the respondents indicated that they found it

relevant and helpful. (p. 206)

In general there was resistance among interviewees to the blunt language of Stonequist, often preferring

words like ‘influence’ rather than ‘power’ etc. This approach preferred a language of ‘scoping’—figuring

out the lay of the land, and in some instances, having done so, adopting a ‘judicious silence’ – important

positionality as ADs go about their work. Silence in such circumstances was often a form of ‘resistance’ to

subvert a particular initiative, with some risk attached in terms of possible reputational damage to the

work of ADs—and connections could be made here to aspects of the Handal et al 2014 paper above.

Even though interviewees general had a negative reaction to the ‘nationalist’ categorisation, described by

the authors as a championing of particular issues, thus becoming an advocate, they were then more

inclined to indicate that some of their actions actually could be described in this manner—pointing also to

particular value positions. However, here too they were more comfortable with terms such as

‘representation’, performing a brokerage role for underrepresented or ‘silenced’ groups such as students

etc.

Viewed thus, the authors comment:

Several respondents viewed the advocacy role more favorably when defined this way, because it

suggested a proactive rather than a reactive stance, conjuring alternative terms, such as activist,

lobbyist, and vanguard. (p. 209).

Further analysis, reveals the usefulness of the Stonequist framework, while also surfacing subtleties

regarding subversive-assimilative positioning of ADs—again with echoes of the Handal et al 2014 paper

above.

What emerges as crucial, particularly in the context of ADs work becoming more institutionalised rather

than living below the radar, positionality and power/ influence and assimilation rather than resistance or

subversion become more significant—all of which commends this framework to the project.

Interviewees too made distinctions between ‘passing’—a practice of keeping your head down, going with

the flow, at least temporarily, while assimilation seemed like a more long term positioning by

comparison, “that assimilation appears more reactive or to be forced on developers” (p. 213).

The conclusion of this paper is worth reading in full; suffice here the concluding sentence—

Our study suggests much of academic development exists in a liminal state, located between and

among other units, as simultaneously inside and outside, and neither completely dominant over, nor

subordinate to, other overlapping cultures within a given institution, but lying ‘betwixt and between’. (p. 214).

This is one of the better papers I’ve reviewed, theoretically powerful with strong analytical and insightful

observations—a core paper, and the framework has potential to be combined with the Schmidt

(2008).For this reason, it may also be worth looking at Green, D.A., & Little, D. (2011). Academic

development on the margins. Studies in Higher Education. Advance online publication.

doi:10.1080/03075079.2011.583640

This next paper Neame (2013), is in the same vein as the one above, concerned with organisational culture,

its potential resistance to change and the approach adopted by ADs in such circumstances. Seems to me

therefore, consistent with the manner in which I’ve been ‘reading’ the above papers that ‘the way we are

now’ is that ADs need to be much more strategic, no longer confined to the T&L silo but rather have

become or are becoming ‘gutter’ personnel with potential to be bridge builders on a resistance-compliance

continuum depending on the strategic planning of the HE concerned and the brokerage ADs can exert in

such circumstances; sometimes enhancing their status and reputation, sometimes undermining it, thus

institutional positioning and its precarious tensions have become a constant, thus forcing ADs to create

‘third spaces’ where in some instances they do not exist, lending considerable reputational risk to their

work, something that was not part of the process nor their status and identity until recently. (This is an

early morning observation, now that I have 5 more papers to read and the end of this theme is in sight!!)

Here too some of the same references continue to recur—Becher and Trowler (2001), Gibbs (2010), while

Wenger too recurs since ‘communities of practice’ and their relative openness to change is a major

consideration in the context of ADs work.

Using the metaphor of ‘viral transmission’—whereby organisations are resistant to change, explored in

Neame (2009), the author here turns his attention to: “‘how to influence’, which is essentially

about responding effectively to institutional culture”; how ADs can infiltrate and influence a culture to

bring about change (p. 332). While the Little and Green (2012) paper may be regarded as a sophisticated

analysis of institutional cultures, here the focus is- “to explore ways of responding to them [internal

scenarios of institutional cultures] which do not necessarily require a sophisticated analysis of cultural

forms and drivers” (p. 332). In this context, several other authors are cited who are familiar, but probably

none more so than Ron Barnett (1990) whose definition of organisational culture is included—“ ‘a taken-

for-granted way of life, in which there is a reasonably clear difference between those on the inside and

those on the outside of the community’ (p. 97)” (quoted in Neame, 2013, p. 333).

For the analytical framework of the paper, Neame draws heavily on Land’s (2004) paper, a framework he

reproduces in the following figure.

The influence of Schon, Barnett and others is evident in the above classifications. Neame goes on to

describe these contrasting approaches as managerialist-interventionist as opposed to democratic—

collaborative, the former largely transactional in nature, the latter with more transformative potential

according to these underlying assumptions.

Despite the loss of the fine granularity of a subtler classification system, this

polarisation allowed the essential features of different scenarios to be evaluated.

Interventionist orientations focus more on mechanisms for active dissemination of

good practice. They tend towards a problem fixing or knowledge transfer approach

by an external agent and are more likely to be transactional in nature. Democratic

orientations focus on dialogue and trust, assuming a more collaborative engagement

between developer and colleagues. (p. 337)

However, it is important to acknowledge that the boundaries between these orientations are permeable and

in some instances may contain elements of both. He states:

Some orientations appear to fall into both subdivisions or to allow for movement

between them. The ‘political-strategic’ orientation, for example, is arguably

interventionist in intent, being premised on finding ways of implementing policy

and ensuring compliance. However, as a pragmatic philosophy it will adopt whichever

approach is most likely to be effective. It illustrates the permeability of orientations

and the potential for educational developers to take a diverse approach. (p. 337)

The paper concludes that even the simplified dichotomous framework is useful as a way of thinking about

‘change’ but it may no longer be sophisticated enough in my view. It also concludes that having an

influential ‘champion’ of the reform—an insider—is more likely to gain traction than the outsider AD. He

also argues that the AD needs to be opportunist and flexible—thus switching from interventionist to

democratic through the process, but this pragmatism ignores the values position of ADs. The final sentence

suggests that given this single case, further research is necessary elsewhere to further test the model. While

I think this paper is worth mentioning—from a conceptual and theoretical perspective, it is not in the same

league as the Handal et al (2014) paper and Little and Green (2012).

Apart from the electronic search, it was probably the title of this Taylor (2005) paper that suggested itself

as being particularly suited to theme 5—leadership and ADs. The following paragraph taken from the

paper’s introduction, clearly frames the role of ADs as a leadership challenge given several contemporary

influences on HE more generally.

Academic developers collaborate with colleagues to build teaching and

learning capacity not only among individual teachers, but also through curriculum development

(Cook, 2001), the integration of technology in teaching (Gandolfo, 1998), and career

development (Åkerlind & Quinlan, 2001). Increasingly, academic developers are called upon

to provide leadership in problem solving and change at the institutional level (Diamond, 2005;

Fletcher & Patrick, 1998; Hart, 1997; MacDonald, 2002). In this changing context, “efforts

to change teaching and improve learning are essentially battles over institutional values,

rewards, and behaviors” (Lazerson, Wagener, & Shumanis, 2000, p. 19). This observation

clearly places academic development in the leadership domain. (p. 32)

Drawing on the work of Palmer, concepts of leadership and AD are combined in the following framework,

whereby the work of ADs is construed as Institutional Leadership.

From these diverse experiences, backgrounds and institutional locations, context emerges as critical, while

the evidence also confirms the influence of the macro policy environment—matters such as changes to

assessment, accountability, internationalisation/ diversity, integration of technologies into the teaching-

learning process—issues confirmed by the other themes—thus a shift in emphasis of ADs and in particular

the directors of such units.

In varying ways, participants considered that the ‘person’ the AD is has significance for the role:

All participants identified personal qualities and dispositions that contribute to effective

academic development leadership. Many of these characteristics related to communication:

empathy (7), listening (8), negotiation (7), and interpreting principles and research in context

(9). (p. 35)

Whatever about the past, and claims to expertise, status, institutional positioning and perceptions of ADs

and their work, those in this study were unanimous in their view that being perceived as an ‘academic’

with particular expertise was critical. Taylor states:

Holding an academic appointment, as 20 of the participants did, was a transparent way to

recognize academic development as academic work. However, all interviewees emphasized

that whether one holds an academic position or not, the essential attribute was demonstrating

an academic disposition. (p. 36)

However, the participants also recognise that the position of ‘expert’ can sometimes get in the way of

building trust and rapport with peers from a variety of disciplines so how this is done is critical to avoid a

sense of ‘talking down’ to folks which is a turn off. Thus, while seeing the role as ‘developmental’ in

orientation, interviewees also identify another shift—from individual to collective orientation—

There is a perceived shift from an emphasis on work with individual faculty and small groups to extending

this work to facilitating development at the faculty/school and institutional levels. (p. 36)

As one experienced developer expressed it- echoing my term ‘brokerage’ across a variety of cultural

borders within the institution is increasingly perceived as integral to the role:

“being involved at a range of levels … the whole thing of being there at a policy level is

important, too—having an input into the management level. Dealing with [teaching and

learning issues] at all the different stratas.” In particular, there was a shift in how developers

perceived their roles in interacting proactively with senior administrators. (p. 36)

The following appears to reinforce the ‘gutter’ positioning of ADs in a paper above Little and Green

(2012), at once marginal/ liminal/ mainstream—with potential to influence but with risks attached too.

Developers are increasingly recognized for their expertise, not only with

respect to teaching, learning, and academic culture, but also for their abilities to facilitate

learning in the organization. The academic nature of the role has solidified, but also requires a

collegial posture in the way academic expertise is applied to help others solve problems on

their own terms. (p. 37)

There was recognition to of the need to communicate a ‘vision’ while also being aware that this along is

insufficient—the capacity to engage, to bring others on board is crucial:

Effective leaders not only engaged others in their ideas (9), but also enabled others to participate

in their implementation (10). Team building (5) or the “sort of ‘on the ground’ leadership

being displayed—it’s that notion of a captain-coach—of being there and helping to build up

the whole group” (#5) was also essential to contributing to a sense of community ownership

of the vision. (p. 37)

While these more general leadership competencies were shared widely with university leaders generally,

the participants identified additional characteristics with particular relevance for AD leadership—these

were:

Many of the particular attributes of effective leadership in the academic development

function reflect the nature of the role as participants conceptualized it. The primary focus was

on facilitating the learning of others (14), in contrast to “imposing ownership” (#8) or “giving

the impression that you know all of the answers” (#10). (p. 38)

As further expansion on this AD leadership theme, awareness of context is critical, but the following also

illustrates how institutional positioning and brokerage are increasingly part of the role, requiring

appropriate competences, considerably beyond pedagogical expertise, as the following clearly indicates:

Perhaps because meaningful learning takes place in a specific context, the importance to

developers of understanding and working in context was the strongest theme in the data set.

Knowledge of context is applied in every sphere of influence: at the level of “connecting” with

individual colleagues” (#9), with “helping to shape the agenda” at the institutional level (#14),

and having “a broad knowledge base” about higher education in general (#18). These data

illustrate not only the many facets of leadership in the academic development role, but also the

holistic ways in which developers integrate these facets into their thinking and their practice. (p. 38)

When participants turned their attention to leadership strategies these “fell into the personal/interpersonal

and process domains” (p. 38).

One of the personal strategies articulated by 14 participants

was to “express and model leadership” (#2). Developers in a director role perceived

themselves in leadership roles when they “instigate change and movement” (#10), “provide

leadership for my own staff” (#19), and advocate on issues relevant to teaching and learning

and actively “help to change the agenda” at an institutional level (#14). (p. 39)

Additionally, “Networking and collegiality were also important from the point of view of understanding

the context” (p. 39). Since it is very evident here that the expertise of ADs is in more demand in

institutions, the participants also highlighted the strategic importance of planning within units, and here too

resources are critical.

In the paper’s discussion section and under the sub-heading ‘integrity and identity, Taylor provides the

following very useful summary>

Across institutions and the career span, participants expressed clear personal and role identities.

In many different ways, participants spoke of qualities such as personal competence in teaching

and learning, empathy, commitment, honesty, respect, open-mindedness, openness to change,

ability to relate to the experiences of others, communication skills, and collegiality. (p. 41)

It was how these attributes were applied in practice, however, that most strongly defined

identity for this group of developers. There was overwhelming agreement with respect to

identifying the academic development role as academic work and as requiring a body of

expertise about teaching, learning, and academic culture. There was also strong agreement

that there are aspects of how that knowledge is applied that are essential to role identity:

facilitating, rather than directing the learning of others, and maintaining a collegial posture

that respects the expertise of colleagues. These personal and role aspects of the identity of

academic developers were widely held as givens. An aspect of identity that is more recent in

its emergence, and is more typical of the identity of directors of units than of the group as a

whole, is the perspective that academic developers engage in facilitating learning not just with

individuals and units, but also at the institutional level. (pp. 41-42)

Across all these varied activities, coherence is derived from the perception that all are ‘educators’.

Knowing the context, and teaching in community were also deemed critical

They also identified, ala Palmer’s framework, the increasing importance of ‘learning in community’ but in

the context of external demands for accountability,, the brokerage element of the ADs role has increasingly

come to the fore—as evidenced in the following:

Increasingly, participants in this study are asked to facilitate learning in community with

respect to the strategic goals of the university and a national accountability process (through

the Australian University Quality Agency). These kinds of requests fundamentally changed

the meanings of “community” for these developers. They spoke at length about the shift in

their respective practices to being “far more involved in the political systems of the university”

(#2). This shift has made the learning in community role more complex, in that developers in

this study often functioned as the “boundary spanners” described by Kayrooz, Pearson, and

Quinlan (1997). (p. 43)

In case anyone is in doubt, this changed and changing role exuded leadership in a myriad of ways

including the following:

Dimensions of leadership are evidenced in every aspect of the academic development role. By

exercising identity, integrity, and growth in their teaching, developers demonstrate the credibility,

fairness, honesty, connection, enthusiasm, genuineness, commitment, competency,

sensitivity to values and hopes, broadmindedness, and openness characteristic of effective

leaders (Kotter, 1990; Kouzes & Posner, 1995; Ramsden, 1998). With a strong emphasis on

knowing in community, developers reflect effective leadership when they listen, appreciate and

use internal and external contexts, recognize problems and opportunities, consult, generate

vision in harmony with community, are aware of established conventions, communicate

effectively, and align beliefs and action (Diamond, 2005; Kouzes & Posner, 1995; Ramsden,

1998). (p. 43)

I regard this as one of the seminal papers in this theme.

While Trowler (2013) is primarily concerned with student engagement and the ‘student experience’ in HE,

it also looks to what lessons may be learned from this focus for HE more generally. While she looks to the

leadership literature in schooling, citing Leithwood and others, she also cautions of extrapolating to HE

context even though this research indicates a connection between leadership—and the general ‘leadership

for learning’ orthodoxy. So, the general contours of the study reported here are –

We undertook a study, funded by the Leadership

Foundation for Higher Education, to identify behaviours

by a range of leaders in Higher Education –

senior managers, student leaders, leaders among academic

and support staff – which promoted and

enhanced student engagement. Interviewees commented

on the roles of individual leaders in shifting to a

climate of engagement rather than simply engaging students

in isolated aspects: (p. 92)

There is nothing here that is directly addressed to ADs, while the ‘findings’ such as they are, are addressed to

the leaders of HEs—not particularly useful paper.

Wilcocks (2009) is an introduction of self-study for ADs. Here, in her own words, is what Wilcock’s sets

out to do:

I take some time to describe how authentic self-study can help us respond to the performance-oriented

institutional environments that characterize contemporary higher education, and then propose a

simple framework for successfully conducting authentic self-study scholarship. (p. 124)

The purpose of self-study is intended to be transformative—

Transformative learning occurs when, through critical questioning

of ourselves, our beliefs and our expectations, we experience a deep shift in

perspective which leads us to a new way of being in the world. (p. 124)

Drawing on the work of Loughran and others, the author makes the general point that self-study is not an

end in itself, but rather: “sets the stage for next steps: engaging productively with others, developing

shared understandings of educational issues and strategies to address them” (p. 125). For newly appointed

academic staff, they frequently struggle with the ‘teacher-self’ identity, and in these and other instances,

providing a ‘safe space’ fro critical reflection is necessary for growth. There is recognition too that if self

study is to be transformative, then there has to be a willingness to engage, and to make use of

‘technologies of the self’ that are above and beyond the performative culture so accurately depicted by

Ball (2003). Nevertheless, Wilcocks recognises that “self-knowledge is not enough to enable

transformation – it is also necessary to change those things that work against transformation, such as

everyday habits, patterns of interpersonal relationships, community and organizational structures, etc. (p.

128)

Wilxocks provides a set of coherent statements from preparing for self-study, to participation, methods,

collaboration, and possible publication, and concludes that:

Self-study is well suited to a scholarly approach to educational development,

allowing us to contribute to the ‘discipline’ of educational development and to

improve our own practice. My hope is that we may come to better appreciate the need

for self-studies that encourage us to care for our authentic selves and cultivate more

meaningful and sustainable academic, professional and institutional identities. Such

self-studies offer a route to meaningful transformation. (p. 131).

Apart from advocating self-study as part of a research repertoire for ADs, and as a possible entre into

scholarly publications, this paper does not contribute much, particularly in the context of this theme, while

of course, transformative potential, in all its guises, should never be ignored.

The last paper in this theme is by Wouters et al (2013) a Belgian case study that seeks to move beyond

dichotomous ‘compliance-resistance’ framing through collaboration. Here is what the paper claims:

… the case presented here illustrates that compliance and resistance are

not necessarily the ‘default modes’ in which academic developers are immersed

while interacting with formal leaders. On the contrary, the analysis of this particular

case reveals that developers and leaders were engaged in a process of collaboration. (p. 26)

Using a collaboration lens, the authors claim that the strength of the paper, and its relevance to this theme

is in demonstrating the leadership role played by ADs through collaboration—in this way it connects with

an increasingly emerging theme of the strategic, brokerage, bridging, leveraging risking and strategic role

ADs play between influencing institutional leaders and policies while simultaneously engaging with

academic peers. The paper states:

The strength of this theory [collaboration] lies in the fact that it deliberately focuses on the

process of collaboration, on what is happening ‘inside the black box.’ By using this

theory, we contribute to the discussion about the relationship between academic

developers and formal leaders from a social psychology perspective, rather than an

educational philosophy one. (p. 27)

My impression thus far is that the paper may be methodologically weak but theoretically and analytically

interesting, and worthwhile given the focus emerging in this theme of the increasing ‘brokerage’ role, as

these authors see it – beyond resistance/ compliance where collaboration is perceived as a ‘third space’ and

sphere of influence.