A community-based practice for the co-development of women academic leaders

ABSTRACT

Academic development usually focuses on individuals, with activities bounded by institutional strategy. There is a lack of research exploring the emergence of cross-institutional communities of practice and their ability to offer opportunities for professional collaboration, particularly for underrepresented or marginalised groups. Our study highlights how, after a formal program, individuals from different institutions facilitated deeper connections, transcending hierarchical boundaries and nurturing a sense of trust. Drawing from our experiences, we examine the emergence of a collegiate group of academic women as a community of practice. Co-development through community-based relationships enable personal and professional growth outcomes including, but not limited to, promotion and esteem recognition.

KEYWORDS:

• Academic development
• academic leadership
• co-development
• community-based relationships
• mentorship

Introduction

The underrepresentation of women in leadership positions in universities is a common issue globally, despite the high participation of women in the sector and high tertiary enrolments (Harvey & Jones, 2022; Redmond et al., 2017). Increasing diversity and gender equity in leadership positions can contribute to improved organisational climate, culture, and decision-making (Aiston et al., 2020; Krivkovich et al., 2017). Madsen (2012) also argues that the presence of female academic leaders has far-reaching influence, impacting research and knowledge acquisition, enhancing the experiences of students, faculty, and staff within institutional structures. Further, Yousaf and Schmiede (2016) concur that the voices of women and their contributions, can bring [new] values to organisations and society. Despite these insights, and growing recognition of how women’s leadership can be beneficial for collaboration, inclusion and, legacy mindsets (Dattner et al., 2019), women’s underrepresentation in the academy continues.

The authors came together through a Women in Academic Leadership (WiAL) initiative of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE). This cross-institutional community sought to develop women in leadership positions in academia, and increase their number. Our WiAL cohort grew, beyond outcomes such as promotions, awards, grants, and research outputs, into a Community of Practice (CoP) (Wenger, 1998) enabling co-development and collective knowledge-making.

Combining CoP theory and mentorship literature and drawing on our collective knowledge-making across diverse disciplines, roles, cultures, and institutions across Australia and New Zealand, we sought to understand how transformative outcomes are facilitated through the shared contributions, knowledges and practices amongst a community of women academic leaders, considering the community development dimensions presented in Parkinson et al. (2020). Contextually, the geographic location of this group becomes important; as a qualitative study, it focuses on the experiences and literature of this region and recognises this as a constraint. From our collective experience, we outline our perspectives on the commonalities and differences, needs and expectations of our WiAL community, reflecting on the various ways we engaged with our program and the processes, resources and tools provided by the group. We explore how our participation in the program, which spanned periods of COVID-19 restrictions and lockdowns in our regions, contributed to our personal and professional development, as well as how it influenced the way we viewed our roles within our various academic communities.

Literature review

Academic professional development

Academic Development can be described as activity that ‘aims to enhance the practice, theory, creativity and/or quality of teaching and learning communities in higher or post-secondary education’ (International Journal for Academic Development, 2023). Wardak et al. (2023) proposed four themes by which academic development takes place: format (formal vs. informal); nature (theoretical vs. practice-based); purpose (compliance, career, progression, skill development), and target (new academics or new-to-teaching vs. life-long learners). Within institutions, activities can include courses, training workshops, project collaborations, networking and mentoring, on an ad-hoc or as-needed basis (Wardak et al., 2023). In reviewing the ways in which academic development is embodied, we extend the discussion to faculty/instructional/educational development practices prominent in global resource-rich environments such as the UK, USA, Australia, and Scandinavia (Gosling, 2009).

Leadership and community-building as an academic development practice

Academic development through leadership builds community by promoting a shared sense of purpose, collaborative activity and reflective dialogue (Zheng et al., 2016). Although academic development is often enacted from a central division or unit, informal conversations, knowledge and experience sharing, and localised collegiate support are also important (Pifer et al., 2015; Roxå & Mårtensson, 2009), manifesting as Communities of Practice (CoPs). These CoPs are critical for faculty development, thriving on reciprocal, trust-based collegial dialogue (Boschman et al., 2021; Fields et al., 2019; Wilson et al., 2020).

Effective CoPs are often informal and flexible, providing spaces to learn in ways that are directed by members’ interests and needs (Su & Wood, 2023; Wardak et al., 2023). This organic way of learning may, however, be discordant with institutional priorities. Parkinson et al. (2020) propose a nuanced, adaptable model that explores ‘common interests’ (community-focused rather than individual-focused), supporting transformative discussions that value both professional and contextual expertise, resonating with Lave and Wenger’s (1991) notion of legitimate peripheral participation. In this model, participants share and refine their expertise within the community, fostering a dynamic mentoring environment.

Mentoring and mindsets of change

Understanding institutional growth through the experiences of individuals is difficult, due to the hierarchical nature of organisational structures in higher education (Goerisch et al., 2019; Senge, 2006). Collaborative partnerships, free from hierarchical constraints, can help clarify individual purpose (Sinek, 2019). Such partnerships encourage listening, challenging, supporting and, nurturing each other towards expected heights. Momentum for change must come from within the individual and the institution, but support must encourage avenues by which relationships can form – common experiences, characteristics, or, for this study; gender (Vinnicombe & Singh, 2002). Indeed, the mentorship provided by women for women is crucial within university leadership structures, as women possess a distinctive set of attributes and skills that are more readily appreciated and fostered by their mentees (Janes et al., 2020).

The influence of a mentor is defined through a domain-specific need in a community environment using expertise that is relevant and accessible (Moore et al., 2012). Participants’ institutions recognise these influences but must also recognise successes. Choice in mentorship allows mutual respect to form, contributing to successful interactions that, when considered individually, appear small. However, these successes – amplified and magnified with wider perspective – can contribute towards reconstructing systems and systematic approaches in institutions (Patil, 2020; Stroh, 2015). In this way, safe and supportive mentorship environments can also enable beneficial change at the participants’ institutions.

Sponsorships also provide crucial support for women in academic leadership by increasing visibility and aiding career advancement. A study on African American women demonstrated the importance of such leadership roles, and the mindset required (of mentees) to harness and leverage these connections (Davis & Maldonado, 2015). Mentors that sit outside of a mentee’s institution can be beneficial in overcoming the structural inequalities perpetuated by existing power relationships (Goerisch et al., 2019).

Women in academic leadership – development programs

Research into academic development programs aimed specifically at women in leadership roles is well-established. Harris and Leberman (2012) reviewed the literature on networking and gender equality in academic leadership, suggesting women-only development programs can provide valuable support, but lack sufficiency to tackle underlying organisational practices that perpetuate gender inequality. Harvey and Jones (2022) identified further barriers to women gaining academic leadership positions including: insufficient mentoring; the ‘old boys’ network, and gender inequities. They propose a new leadership discourse that focuses on values and challenges and explores alternate frameworks within which women may claim leadership roles (e.g. Complexity, Relational, Shared, and Distributed Leadership).

Invisible barriers also perpetuate the underrepresentation of women in academic leadership roles, including: inequitable pay; discrimination; harassment; lack of family-friendly policies, and limited opportunities for training and mentorship (Yousaf & Schmiede, 2016). Aiston et al. (2020) argue that superficial policy interventions have failed to dismantle gender biases embedded in the supposed meritocracy.

Moreover, Redmond et al. (2017) found commonalities in the experiences of senior women leaders at a regional Australian university. Their leadership styles – shaped by life and career trajectories – placed importance on relationships, enabling others to grow, and adopting a collaborative approach within environments where gender discrimination was pervasive, particularly as they sought advancement. Within this challenging broader landscape, recent studies have called for transformative mentoring approaches that centre a feminist ethics of care and emphasise empowerment, inclusivity, and reciprocity (Goerisch et al., 2019).

A women’s agenda

The WiAL initiative provides mentoring opportunities for women academics at Associate Professor and Senior Lecturer levels (or equivalent) over a two-year program (Redmond et al., 2021). The initiative includes both women leaders in higher education technology-enhanced learning as mentors, and other experienced women leaders across the sector as invited presenters. This deliberate design of involving both mentor – mentee duos/trios and the wider community enabled in-depth discussions, considered mentoring and a sense of community. Our shared consideration of leadership, communities, ‘caring and encouraging ways’ (Janes et al., 2020, p. 45) of mentoring, and learning together, enabled the co-design of the research question for this study: How are transformative experiences facilitated through a community of women in academia?

Methodology

The investigation was undertaken through collecting personal reflective narratives, which allow one to move beyond describing an action to consider its impact. Narratives are also widely used for research into professional practice, including in learning (Beckmann & Gribble, 2021). Therefore, within our methodology our roles as co-authors are varied, as are our approaches to academic development and collaborative work. Our identity statements below speak to this variation.

Elisa:

I identify as an enabler and facilitator – formerly of student learning in the sciences, but now of academic development and capacity building. I see it as a privilege to be invited into academics’ spaces, and my intentions in supporting curriculum innovation are to guide and empower.

Elaine:

I identify as an educational developer, first as professional services staff and now as an academic, working in both central learning and teaching units and faculty-based units. I approach academic development from an iterative mindset, learning and leading through co-design.

Lynn:

I identify as a digital innovator and education-focused academic with a discipline background in organisational behaviour. However, my ‘first love’ was education, social learning supports me and others to develop.

Isabelle:

I identify as an academic in Health Sciences discipline. My research is on staff professional development and participation in this CoP provided new understanding in collaborations.

Camille:

I am a scholar – practitioner with a view that my activities phase in and out of designing-teaching-evaluating-researching iterations. I have previously worked as a learning designer both as a professional and academic staff, and am now in a traditional academic role in the postgraduate research space. Being embedded in a collaborative community is key to my core as it highlights my differences as my strengths.

Chris:

It has been a long time since I taught in a primary school classroom, however I still identify as a teacher who facilitates best practice with my peers. I am a collaborator who values colleagues from my institution and externally.

Ping:

I have worked for twenty years as an academic in an Australian university, delivering teaching, research and community services in the discipline of information technology. Through this CoP I am challenged and stimulated by different lenses of thinking and conceptualisation.

Lina:

I identify as a ‘learning scientist’ and, at the core, enjoy the ambiguity embodied in this phrase as I see myself as a scientist who studies learning and as a scientist who learns.

Lucila:

I am a teaching academic and educational researcher with expertise in digital education and design for learning. I am also co-director of a research centre, with a mission oriented towards promoting equity through education. I am still learning to navigate the academic environment.

Cheryl:

I have previously worked as an educational developer and now in a traditional academic role, I see myself as a facilitator of learning both for students and colleagues. Collaborating with colleagues is a space that stretches my learning and enhances my innovative practice.

As a group, our roles span traditional, centralised academic development, formal/informal leadership, and collaborative leadership roles within disciplines. These characteristics steeped in [organisational] structures and leadership tenets are also influenced by the varied expertise of each participant – be it contextual (i.e. geographic, virtual, or liminal) space, type of employment, types of organisations, etc. These differences create a diverse community of practitioners that came together in co-designing and developing this research.

Collecting our stories

Following the WiAL program all 29 women were invited to continue in research collaboration and nine accepted. Adopting a collaborative autoethnographic approach (Dickson-Deane et al., 2022) to reflect on our experiences in the program, we drew on co-constructed questions and engaged in a series of online conversations in small groups of two or three over an hour or two. In these conversations, we interchanged the roles of discussant-lead as we explored our academic identity and experiences in the program. These discussions saw the community quickly moving from coalescing to active, where we reflected on the role of mentors and our community in shaping our individual and collective development and success whilst focusing on our common interests, needs, assets and access to opportunities that defined us as a community (Wenger, 1998). Our recorded and transcribed collective narratives were the stimulus for iterative discussion and purposeful reflection during fortnightly meetings over nine months (Romero-Hall et al., 2018). We also used the chat functions of our online whole-group discussions to document outcomes based on personal developmental reflections, shared conversations with peers and negotiated critique, concerns, and conclusions. As researchers, we are members of the community we were writing about, ‘visible in published texts and committed to developing theoretical understandings of broader social phenomena’’ (Mendez, 2013, p. 281) and we each provided informed ethics consent for the use of our data by the group. This process remained iterative, with data continually emerging and evolving even during writing. The present paper itself has been co-constructed synchronously and asynchronously through collaborative documents.

The narratives were analysed thematically, starting with each small group compiling their main observations and drawing out preliminary themes independently using both deductive – drawing on our initial prompts – and inductive processes (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Commonalities across conversations, meeting chat transcripts and a collaborative online whiteboard were then drawn and compiled by the first three authors. Authors 1 and 3 worked to further refine and document these themes as a form of member checking (Iivari, 2018). Themes were consolidated and finalised across the broader group through a process of consultation during regular group meetings and commentary on shared analysis documents. This process yielded the emergence of three main agreed themes that encapsulate our experience and allow exploration of an evolving community:

• Broad development personalised to individual needs,

• Relational development through personal responsibility to each other, and

• Continued collaboration beyond the program.

These three themes, and the relationships between them, are represented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Diagrammatic representation of the themes emerging from analysis of our narrated experiences as a subgroup of researchers. Note: Each ring depicts a theme, and arrows denote their interconnections. Themes are embedded within our research subgroup, but with permeable boundaries to the wider WiAL group, and to our broader professional communities.

Reflections on an evolving community

Theme one: broad development personalised to individual needs

Our research group formed as an emergent community from the structured mentor program, where members’ needs were allowed to be expressed and were met by the group. Each person took ownership and responsibility to identify their own needs and drive their individual development without fear of judgement, as relationships formed through shared stories of personal journeys, upheavals, challenges in roles and nontraditional academic career pathways. This targeted, on-demand support often led to a reinvention and reconstruction of identity. Shared stories of ‘similar chequered past [sic] … so I kind of fell into educational development work … I’m a mixed bag really’ resonated loudly through the group regardless of their current or past roles.

It should be noted this development occurred during hard COVID-19 lockdowns in Australia and New Zealand, hence comments such as ‘ … I agree, doing the women and academic leadership program was a real opportunity for us to just connect and listen to like-minded people’ and ‘it’s a really interesting journey … mine [PhD] was also midway through being an educational designer or education developer, and then at some stage, realising the PhD would give me street cred’ are important. In recognising our diverse backgrounds and needs we listened and responded, letting each person create their own personalised developmental journey.

Several co-authors reflected on the importance of the connections they were making across the group:

Being disconnected from elsewhere in New Zealand and things … I actually think it was part of the reason why this women in academic leadership thing was a place, I was like Yes, this is the place I’m going to put effort in and try to forge relationships, because it will be with like-minded people.

… it was hard to get momentum and traction anywhere … I’ve had to adapt myself to the environment that I’m in, and that’s probably my next step, to try to build my own identity that I can take to different places … I’m trying to find my place with people rather than with places.

Theme two: relational development through personal responsibility to each other

The initial structured program could have resulted in the formation of transactional relationships that concluded with the program. Instead, relationships developed that extended beyond the transactional, providing a sense of support, community and belonging that extended beyond the formal activities to other areas of our work: ‘I guess it’s different this time around … I don’t feel as lonely because I go to conferences and have people in my ear’. The sense of shared responsibility was broader, with each person reaching out and lifting up when and as needed:

The collegiality of that support network and … just places to de-stress online and really it’s been a highlight for me so out of the isolation came other networks and communities.

Every time when I hit a barrier, somebody helps and opens my door.

Growing relationships across the group created a sense of connection, place and trust. The group’s development echoed stages commonly found in CoPs, with the production of this article corresponding to the memorable phase, where we are choosing to share stories and preserve our memories (Wenger, 1998). The third theme reflects our continued collaborative practice.

Theme three: continued collaboration beyond the program

We observed the development of connections and further opportunities that were beneficial to the broader group. The goals of this emergent group have evolved, as have the members and their needs, but the continued place to belong, share stories and develop together is a positive, but unintended, consequence. With no formal system or program to bind us, our continued collaboration was as a community.

Emergent opportunities have also taken the form of reflecting on our processes and writing academic manuscripts to share our experiences with the broader community (Brown et al., 2024). These activities have strengthened and created deeper connections across the group and shifted individuals’ approaches to academic development at their own institutions. For example, one co-author reflected that their involvement in the group prompted deep active listening and facilitation of conversations, skills they utilised in their academic development and management work. They observed the structured program as contributing to their sense of belonging and purpose: ‘hearing about people’s chequered journeys through academia helps me feel like I belong’. Another drew from their experiences to initiate a community approach to academic development at their institution and a less transactional approach to project management, favouring the trading of authority across support teams (Stanton & Young, 2022). Their confidence in community instilled by WiAL allowed them to drive changes in how their institution supported curriculum innovation projects and gave ‘permission’ to relax and allow collaborative development approaches to emerge.

I think what’s come out of this, you know, this group we’ve got … is that those conversations are always, always useful, even if you don’t feel like you’ve got time for them. And I think a lot of people at my university don’t feel like they’ve got time for any of these things. And that’s why we’re deliberately making time.

Another co-author reflected on the value of knowledge sharing across the group:

I like the exploratory journey that the group shares and the diversity of theoretical lenses and personal development experiences each member brought in. It enriches my learning and development experiences … our different goals were achievable because of the nature of the program.

Discussion

Our reflections, on the emergence of this CoP from a structured mentoring program, have emphasised the importance of freedom to express oneself and one’s views, the non-hierarchical nature of discussions and collaborations, and the supportive nature of the group in which experiences could be shared. These parameters provided the conditions by which a continuing, collegial collaboration was able to emerge.

Overall, our findings highlight how individuals’ goals are strengthened through connections, and how these connections foster a mutual sense of responsibility and care (Goerisch et al., 2019). Through WiAL we formed trusting relationships and open lines of communication that provided suitable conditions for an emergent collaborative CoP. Our self-selection into the research group was founded on individual drive and ambition, but has grown into a sense of shared responsibility, with our research outputs developed through legitimate participation from each individual and through collaborative and supportive microstructures (Taylor et al., 2021) nested within the broader group. These shifting nodes of influence and leadership have reinforced a model that is collaborative, distributed and focused on community. As Harris and Leberman (2012) discuss, women-in-leadership programs that employ a collective learning approach through discussions, reflections, and experience sharing can be of significant benefit to participants and their institution(s).

An evolving community

Our experiences show how a group, created to build skills and knowledge in individuals through a transactional mentorship program, has grown into a collaborative community. From this community, formal and informal groups emerged where individuals provided support, feedback, insight, resources, and information (sensu Burkinshaw & White, 2019). Whilst some believe women-only groups are less effective for career development than mixed-gender groups (Burkinshaw & White, 2019), informal relationships, both within and outside organisations, can provide opportunities for friendship, trust, professional contacts, and knowledge sharing that are instrumental in supporting women’s advancement into leadership roles (Baker & Dutton, 2017; Harris & Leberman, 2012). As a result of this CoP, we have seen the structure and function of relationships vary, forming both internally between members of the group, and externally between group members and others at their respective institutions, enabling progress at several scales – individual development, collaborative research, and institutionally focused academic development. Our internal relationships have also shifted from a group defined by leaders, mentors and mentees, to a collective of colleagues in which new and varied relationships are continually formed, reformed, strengthened and changed. Describing these changes and shifts according to the axes defined in Parkinson et al. (2020), we have moved from a group that was largely individual-focused and incorporated an alleviating, asset-based structure, into a community-focused, needs-based transformative CoP (Wenger, 1998).

From collaboration to collegiality

For those WiAL members who merged into the research CoP, their development moved beyond transactional to relational, and included a strong sense of responsibility to each other. It is important here to acknowledge that the structure and function of the original program allowed a community to emerge by providing conditions that facilitated trust. These trusting open relationships provided empowerment and contributed to mutual benefits and productivity. In this way, our group has practised productive collaboration that, with relationships forged in a turbulent environment – owing to regional COVID-19 lockdowns, and common professional and personal challenges, including those linked to our places as women in academia – have deepened to collegiality. Little (1990) describes collegiality as encompassing storytelling, aid and assistance, sharing, and joint work, that together ‘induce mutual obligation’ (Fielding, 1999). Whereas collaboration is ‘a plural form of individualism … focused strongly on intended gains’ (Fielding, 1999, pp. 16–17), collegiality draws on collective strengths and evokes notions of care and kindness (Cain et al., 2023; Goerisch et al., 2019), privileging ‘individuality over individualism and community over contract’ (Fielding, 1999, p. 6). Through our processes of sharing experiences (‘storytelling’ and ‘sharing’) and co-writing (‘joint work’), we are – as an emergent research group – enacting in practice a form of ‘radical collegiality’ (Davey, 2023; Fielding, 1999) that transcends professional collaboration and embraces democratised mutual learning and support. Moreover, we are enacting this community-building in a sector that is often highly fragmented, siloed (Becher & Trowler, 2001), and deferential to hierarchy (Senge, 2006). In strengthening ties to each other we are enabling the formation of stronger ties within our own institutions, circumventing the traditional hierarchical nature of institutionalised support.

Our group has capitalised on emergent opportunities to enable continuing professional development, showing strength, resilience and persistence through collegiate collaboration. Wardak et al. (2023) present a nuanced understanding of professional development as perceived by academics, highlighting its multidimensionality and the integral role of individual mindsets. They argue the need for academic development design to be driven by relevance, by aligning development opportunities with academics’ individual needs. The recognition of ‘praxis’ as a philosophical cornerstone underscores the significance of action in the face of uncertainty, thereby highlighting the sustainability of professional growth. A strengths-based approach fosters a holistic, multidisciplinary perspective, by focusing on positive attributes. This study found a dualistic conception of academic development oscillating between self-development and institutional mandates, highlighting the importance of resilience, where personal and professional commitments are navigated simultaneously.

Implications for academic development

Building on insights from the facilitation of a supportive and thriving community of women, critical lessons emerge. Firstly, the importance of coming together to initiate significant conversations and share stories, explore commonalities, acknowledge differences, and build a shared identity, is emphasised.

Initial dialogues lay the groundwork for the establishment and maturation of the community. It is vital to create a safe environment that encourages open discussion, enabling participants to overcome hesitations and give voice to their enthusiasms and concerns. Maintaining and sustaining these significant discussions through regular scheduled sessions can be instrumental in nurturing a thriving community.

Another essential aspect is the flattening of power relationships through shared ownership of a common project. In our case, group reflection on the development of our community and the collaborative effort of manuscript writing not only provided a tangible goal but also encouraged collective ownership, dismantling potential power hierarchies and encouraging mutual respect.

Finally, allowing vulnerability within the community is critical. Members must feel comfortable sharing their passions, showing support for others, and displaying openness to ideas and contributions. This requires an atmosphere of trust and acceptance where members feel invited and included (Baker & Dutton, 2017; Zheng et al., 2016). Vulnerability, in this context, becomes a strength, a tool for deeper connections and more meaningful interactions. As each member shares their passion and support, the collective strength and resilience of the community grows.

Future research and considerations

Findings from this paper can guide future practices and frame processes of CoP formation that consider shared professional identity and motivations within and between individuals from different departments and organisations. This group of women came together through a shared interest in technology-enabled learning, and our experiences navigating the well-documented barriers to the advancement of women in fields including (but not limited to) STEM and Education (Dattner et al., 2019; Romero-Hall et al., 2018). Further investigations of intersections between disciplinary-focussed and societal and organisational structural challenges will be useful, as will enabling open discourse that examines the rejection or exclusion of gendered workforce contributions from key ways of working. In supporting this understanding, we acknowledge that our experiences do not necessarily reflect those of the entire WiAL cohort, since each contributor has unique characteristics and experiences that give rise to nuances in interpretation, action and emotive responses. As such, we do not make presumptions about the experiences of WiAL participants outside this authorship and encourage further empirical investigation to corroborate, challenge, or contextualise our findings.

Conclusion

Our reflections highlight our successes, struggles, and the contradictions between meeting, immediate needs, and long-term transformative practice. We comprise largely non-traditional academics whose eclectic experiences have spanned cultures, countries, industries, and disciplines. Our struggles with our academic identity as leaders connected us – as one author noted, we ‘found our clan’ (Cain et al., 2023). With a common interest in educational technology, we often became the ‘go-to people’ during the pandemic in our institutions, balancing our roles as supporters with our need for support. WiAL provided an empathetic and supportive space to share and strategize about uncertainty, developing our confidence, careers, knowledge and practice, all towards the most important social capital – trust.

This paper provides insights into an approach to academic development supported through an emerging community that facilitated collaborative, empowering and inclusive practices. We concur with Janes et al. (2020) that ‘… mentoring of women in the academy by other female leaders is essential’ (p. 45). Our experiences inform the next iteration of the WiAL program and offer a model for the academic development of women globally.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Elisa K. Bone

Elisa Bone is a Senior Lecturer in Higher Education at the Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne, Australia, where she advises academics across diverse disciplines in curriculum design and innovation. She holds a PhD in Zoology and has worked as a researcher, instructor, and academic developer in several countries. She has been a senior researcher on multi-institutional projects that integrate environmental science and education for both schools and communities and continues to bring her scientific perspectives into her educational development and research.

Elaine Huber

Elaine Huber is an Associate Professor and a leader in co-design and collaboration and is a Principal Fellow of AdvanceHE. She is Vice President of ASCILITE, has led a wide range of learning and teaching communities and institutional change initiatives, and as the Academic Director of Business Co-Design, she currently leads a strategic initiative, Connected Learning at Scale at the University of Sydney Business School on teaching large classes.

Lynn Gribble

Lynn Gribble is an Associate Professor and Education Focused academic, School of Management & Governance, UNSW Sydney. She is an awarded educator recognised at a university, national and international levels. Lynn has used her keen interest in transformative learning through engagement, belonging, and personalisation of each student’s learning experience.

Isabelle Lys

Isabelle Lys is a Senior Lecturer in Biosciences teaching focused position at ACU. She has worked in tertiary higher education for almost two decades in Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. She is interested in building cross- and trans-disciplinary Community of Practices (CoPs) within and between universities to facilitate educational development in the Sciences.

Camille Dickson-Deane

Camille Dickson-Deane is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Technology, Sydney, Australia where she is the Ag. Deputy Head of School (Research) for Professional Practice and Leadership in FEIT. She is a Fulbright and Organisation of American States (OAS) scholar with expertise in diverse geographies and diverse spaces (i.e., face to face, blended, and online). Her research focuses on the sociotechnical spaces in the field of online learning, teaching, and performance (i.e., pedagogical usability, individual differences and contextualised online learning designs) and has demonstrated this expertise through a variety of research outputs. She serves on two Q1 editorial boards and most recently she was again selected as one of the 2024 experts to represent Australia on EDUCAUSE’s Horizon Report.

Chris Campbell

Chris Campbell is the Nexus Fellow at UNSW Canberra. Chris works across the Faculty in innovative learning and teaching projects. Chris is past President of ASCILITE, and works on the TELAS portfolio, including implementing the framework and developing the workshop training and assessment procedures across the sector.

Ping Yu

Ping Yu is a Professor based at the University of Wollongong, and leader in collaborative research for digital transformation of health and aged care globally. Her social-technical approach to R&D has earned her multiple awards, including 2022 Brilliant Women in Digital Health convened by Telstra Health. She has supervised 15 PhD graduates, published 180 peer-refereed papers, and currently leads a team to apply generative artificial intelligence and large language models to health data mining.

Lina Markauskaite

Lina Markauskaite is a Professor of Learning Sciences at the University of Sydney, Australia. Her research spans three related areas: 1) students’ and teachers’ digital capabilities; 2) professional learning for complex knowledge work and innovation; and 3) ICT-enhanced interdisciplinary research methods (eResearch). Her recent research projects have been mainly concerned with understanding the nature of learning in interprofessional and inter-disciplinary contexts.

Lucila Carvalho

Lucila Carvalho is an Associate Professor at the Institute of Education at Massey University, New Zealand, where she is also co-director of the Equity Through Education Research Centre. Lucila’s research interests are at the intersection of sociology, design, digital technologies, and learning. Her research explores the web of elements – tasks, people, digital, and material tools – that come together to influence social and educational experiences.

Cheryl Brown

Cheryl Brown is Professor and Head of the School of Educational Studies and Leadership, University of Canterbury, New Zealand. Having worked in higher education in South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. Her research focuses on how inequality influences university students’ digital experience and consequently their digital identities. She is currently exploring the role technology plays in students’ learning and in the development of their digital literacy practices, particularly in resource constrained contexts.