Interior Design as an Analogy for Academic Development

We invite you to step into an analogy – an analogy which may offer an original perspective on the (academic) homes and spaces we inhibit and create. While reading and contemplating the articles in the current issue of IJAD, four principles of interior design emerged for us that appear relevant and fundamental to design of both interiors and academic development programmes and spaces: intentionality, empathy, sustainability, and inclusivity. In this editorial, we therefore propose the analogy of interior design as a guide for reading and interpreting the articles in this issue. We offer our interpretation of four principles of interior design and explore their relationship to the themes of the articles in this issue. We also use design as a lens to understand emotions as a dimension of academic development.

Design and Intentionality

Interior design is rooted in intentionality – in having clarity about the nature, purpose, and motivations guiding our decisions and actions. As renowned designer Debbie Millman has noted, ‘People ask me […] “How do you define design? And I say design is about intention. Deliberate intention”’ (Brown, 2022). During our years of practice as academic developers, the importance of intentional design has certainly come to the fore for us – intentionality in course design, curriculum design, design of teaching and learning spaces and cultures. And yet, perhaps surprisingly, ‘intentionality’ as an explicit design principle for academic development is not as prevalent as one might imagine. While Rathbun and Turner (2012) advocate for an intentional and conscious approach to a relationship-focussed academic development practice, ‘intentionality’ is most often discussed in relation to faculty members taking agency in their teaching development (e.g., Thorley, 2020).

Katsampoxaki-Hodgetts’s (2023) work in this issue sits at the crossroads of design, intentionality, and emotion. The author writes about ‘intentional syllabus redesign’ (p. 451), noting that syllabus design that is ‘careful’ and ‘intentional’ can be a ‘driver of change’ (p. 459). While working towards enhanced transparency and intentionality in a syllabus design process intended to promote student agency and engagement, teachers had to confront a variety of emotions, powerfully described by one study participant as feeling ‘naked’, ‘vulnerable’ and ‘exposed’ (p. 461) to students.

Design and Empathy

Another design principle present in this issue is ‘design is a function of empathy’ (Brown, 2022). Empathy entails being attuned to the feelings, thoughts, and needs of others (cf. Merriam-Webster, 2023). Ideally, in our homes, classrooms, and universities, we attempt to create physical and emotional spaces that meet the needs of the people who inhabit those spaces. An empathetic approach to interior design ‘requires a level of understanding of human behavior, of behavioral psychology, that necessitates a way into understanding what is fundamentally important to someone’ (Millman, in Brown, 2022). At the heart of this empathetic approach, then, is a willingness to inhabit the world of the other, to understand the world from their perspective. Empathy is therefore an act of relationship building. Interestingly, Budge and Clark (2012) propose that academic development may be conceived of as a ‘creative act’, one which ‘acknowledge[s] that commonalities, or a universal connection exist(s)’ (p. 61). Within this issue, Roy et al. (2023) comment on the importance of empathy when building collaborations with students. Barrios-Rodríguez et al. (2023) draw our attention to empathy for students as a skill that can be developed by teachers.

Design and Sustainability

Sustainability is another principle shared by interior design and academic development. Sustainable design pays deep respect to the environment or context in which we are building and creating. Ideally, we are building in harmony with the environment, thoughtfully deliberating over materials, and (re)using resources wisely. A sustainability perspective requires us to think in a holistic way (Sutherland, 2018) and to consider the long-term impact and broader implications of our actions and decisions (Bolander Laksov, 2023).

It is difficult to think about sustainability without also adopting an ecological perspective, which acknowledges not only multiple levels of a system, but also the interrelatedness of these levels (Bronfenbrenner, 1995; Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000). Bolander Laksov (2023) brings this ecological perspective to the fore. We are beings situated in an environment. The decisions we make are dependent on who we are, where we come from, and also on the environment in which we participate. In this way, she positions universities as social-cultural entities. Dorner and Kumar’s (2023) work in this issue is also infused with a sense of being attuned to the connectedness among the parts that form the whole. The authors advocate for the design of an integrated, holistic approach to academic development for doctoral students to ‘overcome the fragmentation of academic work’ (p. 425).

Design and Inclusivity

Our homes are inhibited by many, but how might we design our spaces so that all voices are heard? Here, we are thinking about different voices in a system and asking ourselves how we pay thoughtful and respectful attention to those voices. This leads us to another design principle – that of inclusivity. The articles in this issue speak of a movement internationally towards having all voices heard. There are many agents within our universities, and we have not always listened to all voices. The call of Hoon at al. (2019) to include all voices and identities to contribute to institutional change leads us to re-think and re-design our conversational spaces and academic development procedures. The special issue of IJAD in 2019 [IJAD 24(2)] provides many examples of marginalised voices ‘who dare […] to call the university to action’ (Behari-Leak & Mokou, 2019, p. 135). As an example of how universities can support marginalised voices, Kennedy et al. (2019) describe an educational development grants program initiative, which specifically stimulates an Aboriginal way towards reconciling Indigenous Knowledges in the Australian higher education curriculum. We see in Issue 4 (2023) initiatives that strive to have a more equal relationship between teaching and research, as well as between sessional and tenured academics (Mason et al., 2023), between doctoral students and casual tutors (Roy et al., 2023; Datey, 2023), and between heads of department and educational innovators (Bolander Laksov, 2023). Inducing changes in our universities is not only the responsibility of teachers and researchers, but also of leadership, and all those at the University who are not in academic roles, but who support teaching, research and policy. In re-thinking the design of our universities, we need to embrace the design principle of inclusion for all.

Intentional design to foster emotion

The tangible and intangible design elements of an environment can evoke an abundance of emotions. Indeed, the language of emotion is prevalent in the articles in this issue, showing that affect is an integral dimension of academic development work. Upsettingly, perhaps, much of that language appears fraught: isolation, separation, alienation, invisibility, struggle, anxiety, worry, fear, frustration, confusion, shame, stress, and vulnerability.

This language beckons us to consider not only how we might acknowledge and attend to the emotions of the colleagues who participate in academic development programming, but also how, as academic developers, we might be actively involved in the intentional design of those environments. Jamieson’s (2003) work invites us to recognise ‘the learner as a thinking, feeling, active social being’ (p. 130) and beckons academic developers to become actively involved in the design decisions around teaching and learning spaces.

Several articles in this issue either explicitly or implicitly address how design decisions might assuage or harness challenging emotions while also enhancing emotions that foster relationships and a sense of belonging. Among teachers participating in the pre-observation phase of a peer review of teaching programme, Barrios-Rodríguez et al. (2023, p. 391) observe a shift away from negative affect – such as nervousness, shame, and discomfort – when discussing their experiences. Study findings reveal that certain intentional design decisions might alleviate undesired emotions and enhance participant experience, such as providing information to participants about the programme in advance and establishing a comfortable environment. Vázquez (2023) deeply explores the profoundly emotional nature of two ‘ceremonies of passage’ (p. 495) of academics: the experience of graduate school and the tenure process. The work beckons us to recognise ‘the emotional side of academic development’ (p. 505). ‘It is imperative that academic and researcher developers around the world consider to what extent their academic development programs shape the emotional and psychosocial life of academic teachers in research universities’, Vázquez notes (2023, p. 506). This work explores how academic development programming might be designed in a way that recognises the emotional climate of the academic contexts in which we work, as well as the emotional and psychosocial needs of teachers. Intentional design rooted in these factors might nurture ‘collective purpose’ and a ‘sense of belonging’ (Vázquez, 2003, p. 505). Datey (2023) illuminates a role for academic developers in attending to ‘the isolation and invisibility of casual academics’ (pp. 420–421). The suggested approach for doing so is grounded in relationship building, with academic developers being encouraged to create partnerships with ‘precarious academics’ (p. 421). Godbold et al. (2023) note similar feelings of isolation among the teaching-focussed academics (TFAs) in their study. Interestingly and unexpectedly, they also witnessed the emergence of an identity as academic developers among some TFAs.

Conclusion

We have offered the analogy of interior design and the four principles of intentionality, empathy, sustainability, and inclusivity as a lens through which to view our work as academic developers. We have also explored how intentional design might influence the emotional landscape of our work. We acknowledge that other equally relevant and important principles may guide our practice, and that some of these will be deeply rooted in the distinctiveness of our local interiors. We also acknowledge that this analogy, like most, will have limitations. Even so, we invite you entertain this analogy for a time and to reflect on the principles you draw upon either implicitly or explicitly when designing our academic development initiatives and our homes.