“Strategic Leadership in Academic Development”, Studies in Higher Education, 2006 Vol. 33 No.3: 373-82 (With Paul Blackmore)

Main Argument and Development of the Paper

Initially the paper reviews the changing nature of the academic role, and attempts at professionalizing academic work ‘in the sense of defining required expertise, providing development opportunities and formally recognizing proficiency’ (p 374) promoted by government. The Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education isidentified as an example of a ‘top down’ initiating impulse combined with ‘bottom up’ development of control through individual membership and representative structures. The potential tension between establishing minimum standards(a common goal in professionalism) designed to protect the interests of client groups and the notion of autonomy in academic life is identified. The allegiance of academic staff both to external professional bodies in some areas and the less formal notion of ‘being professional’is also seen as a barrier to formal professionalizing strategy.

The paper advocates an explicit concern with the whole faculty role identifying it as ‘including teaching, research, knowledge transfer and civic engagement, leadership, management and administration, and with their interrelationships’ (p 375) arguing that this is even more important with the current trends towards fragmentation. It introduces the idea of variation over a career in task range as a response to unrealistic requirements for continuous excellence on all fronts. This also avoids the ‘unbundling’ of the academic role but provides scope for recognizing the inevitable needfor a degree of specialization at particular points. It concludes ‘threshold standards of competence or proficiency may need to be contemplated in each area’ (p 376). It advocates a parallel professionalisation strategy for leaders of academic development as a way of maintaining and enhancing both the confidence of their academic colleagues in their activities and their own capacity and competence.

Leadership in Academic Development

Two sections then identify the leadership role in academic development. The mediating role between different interests and the potential tension between strategic SD focused on organizational needs and the preferred ways of working of individuals are identified together with the inevitable questioning of credentials that accredited programmes bring. A picture of staff development heads is then painted based on a sample of 18 (about a fifth in post) - the ‘proficient head’. This focuses on the following:

  • The ability to be analytical
  • Political awareness
  • Good personal contacts coming from duration in the organization
  • The ability to shift between frames of reference
  • Fragmentation and decision making
  • Awareness and use for a range of techniques
  • Project management skills
  • Clear goals
  • Ability to work at national level

A review of learning patterns and activities indicates a preference for informal social, tacit learning and relatively limited engagement with formal education. A similar picture emerges from a review of Australasian faculty development heads (although half of that sample of 25 had begun working life as school teachers). The paper asks ‘put bluntly, how credible are heads or their staff in the formal preparation of faculty, if they themselves, have taken no part in formal learning?’ (p 378).

Various initiatives and/or potential routes for achieving this are reviewed including the SEDA fellowship scheme, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development standards framework, the ILTHE and, Higher Education Research Development Society of Australasia’s fellowship ‘recognition and development scheme’. None are judged to be wholly satisfactory.

Leadership and Academic Development

This section outlines the qualities and foci required of leaders if they are to parallel and interact productively with a holistic conception of the faculty role. It asks the question ‘what might a leadership role in the development of academic practice look like’? The first part of this section argues for the need to adopt a holistic conception of the academic role and move away from the default position in which academic development is associated ‘wholly or mainly’ with teaching and learning. It notes the variability of faculty roles changes over the course of careers and argues that academic development leaders need to be offered and take up similar combinations of experience to their faculty colleagues. Important claims can be made to assisting with ‘double’ and ‘triple’ loop organizational learning and promoting evidence-based practice as part of a professionalizing strategy. In terms of the known orientations of SD personnel this implies a shift towards system and policy orientations but not to the extent of simple compliant managerialism as the abilityand willingness to question and critique remains important to learning.

The paper concludes by explicitly stating that it sees the faculty role and the academic development (or SD) role being professionalized in parallel. It argues that the qualities identified for the head of academic development start to outline what ‘heads could be expected to posses, at least at a threshold level’ (p 384). It sees the need to combine informal learning, more formal development embedded possibly in work-based learning qualifications probably at Masters Level.

Evidence Base and Methodology

The paper is based upon a combination of literature review, previous work by the authors (including with other collaborators) and an empirical study of leaders of academic development in the UK.