The critical-constructive potential of academic development: a case study

ABSTRACT

In universities worldwide, there is an increased reliance on academic developers to contribute to enhancing higher education. As critical-constructive agents within their universities, academic developers have the potential to contribute to changes on the institutional level as well as on the level of educational practices. While such a role has been discussed in previous research, there are few empirical studies showing what it may look like in practice and how it may be nurtured and sustained. In this article, we explore the growth of an academic development unit over time, tracing its incremental shift from a constricted position with limited legitimacy and agency but emergent critical-constructive voices in 2016, to a centre holding an integrated and strategic position with a critical-constructive focus on the educational and societal mission of the university in 2021. The study contributes (1) an empirical example of how an increasingly integrated, influential and critical-constructive academic development unit may be nurtured; and (2) a conceptual framework to understand and enhance the critical-constructive potential of academic development.

KEYWORDS:

• Academic development
• educational mission
• agency
• practical reasoning
• critical-constructive potential

Introduction

The growing interest in quality enhancement has broadened the scope of academic development, weaving academic developers (ADs) into the institutional fabric of universities (Stensaker 2018) placing them ‘strategically within institutions’ (Sugrue et al. 2018, 2336) and widened their professional responsibility to include the societal purpose and potential of higher education (Kandlbinder 2007; Sutherland 2018). To conceptualise such a role for ADs, and what it implies in terms of epistemic basis and practices we draw on sociologist Kalleberg’s notion of the cultural and democratic obligation of universities (2011) and his idea of a critical-constructive researcher (2009): ‘Critical questions open up for the evaluation of social phenomena according to different value standards and norms, for instance having to do with justice, equality, ecological sustainability, health, efficiency' while ‘the constructive task is to develop insights about feasible alternatives to existing structures, distributions and practices, alternatives that are better than existing ones’ (Kalleberg 2009, 264–65).

Previous research has illuminated important conditions for ADs to be able to enact research-based, critical and constructive reflections on the societal, cultural and political context and contribution of higher education as well as the many challenges such an attempt faces (e.g. Green and Little 2013; Di Napoli 2014; Fremstad et al. 2020; Solbrekke and Sugrue 2020), and we are mindful of the idealist impetus of such a project. Our study is important precisely because empirical studies of what this role may look like in practice, and on the process of developing conditions for critical-constructive academic development practices over time, are so scarce. This type of empirical research is needed to deepen the understanding of ADs’ roles and responsibilities in practice, as they shift in tune with an increased reliance on academic development by universities worldwide, not just for developing but also for maintaining quality in higher education in the face of rapidly changing conditions. This paper contributes both empirical and theoretical knowledge by undertaking a case study of the evolution of an academic development unit (ADU) over a period of eight years (2013–2021), focusing on 2016–2021. The case serves (1) as an empirical example of how an increasingly integrated, comprehensive and critical-constructive ADU has developed over time; and (2) to propose a conceptual framework useful for understanding and enhancing the critical-constructive potential of academic development.

The ADU which is the object of our case study is located at a medium-sized Swedish university founded in the 1960s, with around 17,000 registered students and 1,200 staff. We have chosen to focus on this particular ADU because we saw that it has undergone an incremental shift from a constricted position with limited legitimacy and agency but with emergent critical-constructive voices in 2016 (Fremstad et al. 2020) to a unit with an integrated and strategic position with a critical-constructive focus on the educational mission of the university in 2021. Thus, the case offers an opportunity to explore, empirically as well as conceptually, the enhancement of the critical-constructive role of academic development. As analytical tools, we have combined Emirbayer and Mische’s (1998) conceptualisation of agency with Colby and Sullivan’s (2008) notion of practical reasoning, to shed analytical light on the interplay between critical-constructive capacities and contextual conditions.

The present study has been undertaken as part of the international Formation and Competence Building of University Academic Developers project, funded by the Research Council of Norway¹, and draws on the extensive literature review from this project (Sugrue et al. 2018). More recent publications have been identified in our ongoing work since 2017.

Literature review

ADs in their institutional context: extant and emerging roles of academic development

Often positioned on the borderlines between academy, leadership and administration (Green and Little 2013), ADs commonly find themselves engaged with both strategic institution-wide projects and hands-on support of university teachers. The organisational position of ADUs within universities vary considerably depending on national and institutional context. Stensaker et al. (2017) argue that in order to contribute to the educational mission of their institutions, ADs need to engage not only with how the members of the university think about teaching and learning and how they practice it, but also with organisational questions about how the university can combine its many resources and provide beneficial structures for enhancing the quality of education (2017, 7–8). This also implies, according to Laursen and Rocque (2009), that academic development is seen as an ‘instrument for strategic adaption and transformation’ (cited by Stensaker et al. 2017, 22–23). Such a position is found to entail both advantages and pitfalls. Close links with institutional leadership bring, on the one hand, strategic influence and influence on the structures and conditions of ADs’ own work, and, on the other, the risk of becoming (seen as) the extension of leadership and management at the cost of autonomy, agency and legitimacy (Boud and Brew 2013; Di Napoli 2014; Handal et al. 2014; Middlehurst 2014; Peseta 2014; Saroyan 2014; Roxå and Mårtensson 2017; Fremstad et al. 2020).

ADs operate in a ‘web of commitments’ (Solbrekke, Sugrue, and Sutphen 2020, 53), where their work depends on brokering between leaders at different levels of the university, academics from a range of subjects, administrative staff and students. They are expected to contribute to educational support and development in a wide range of areas, which means they are sometimes asked to pursue conflicting goals. Such tensions within the AD role have variously been conceptualised by researchers since Land’s (2004) seminal study, in which he found that ADs’ alter between an orientation toward the individual and the institution. In this context, he identifies a tension between ADs’ ‘emancipatory’ aims – empowering teachers to critically assess their own as well as institutional practices and teach with integrity – and ‘domesticating’ aims – qualifying academics to teach according to institutional traditions and expectations.

In the wake of Land’s (2004) work, researchers have stressed the importance of ADs’ being perceived by academics as peers (Kandlbinder 2007; Handal et al. 2014; Roxå and Mårtensson 2017), but also the significance of strong relationships with educational leadership at various levels of the institution for academic development to become integrated into institutional practices (Saroyan 2014; Stensaker 2018; Sugrue et al. 2018; Fremstad et al. 2020). The question becomes how to avoid institutional capture, while still having institutional influence (Gibbs 2013; Peseta 2014). Green and Little (2013) describe ADs’ position ‘on the margins’ (523) as potentially (more) constructively critical, as from there ADs can balance a reactivity to the expectations from leadership and academic colleagues with a proactive contribution to dialogue about possible alternatives to traditional practices and structures.

Towards a critical-constructive role for ADs?

Agency has repeatedly been identified as crucial for ADs to be able to navigate the tensions inherent in their roles and responsibilities (Handal et al. 2014; Peseta 2014; Saroyan 2014; Roxå and Mårtensson 2017; Fremstad et al. 2020). But what happens to ADs’ agency as the AD becomes ‘more strongly linked to institutional strategic efforts and ambitions, is more involved in activities related to structural and organisational context of teaching and learning and is drawn into the administrative and managerial sphere of university affairs’ (Stensaker et al. 2017, 4)? Several conditions have been singled out as central to sustaining agency: recruitment and career pathways, organisational position of ADUs, opportunities for undertaking research, professional development, and collaborative deliberations about the role and responsibilities of ADs and how best to enact these (Challis, Holt, and Palmer 2009; Middlehurst 2014; Roxå and Marquis 2019; Fremstad et al. 2020). Middlehurst (2014) argues for the importance of maintaining an appropriately professional distance from institutional leaders in the interest of professional autonomy and integrity.

In line with Emirbayer and Mische’s (1998) conceptualisation of agency, various authors assert that ADs themselves, while faced with challenges to their agency, carry both opportunity and responsibility for creating conditions for agency (Handal et al. 2014; Roxå and Mårtensson 2017; Fremstad et al. 2020). The basis for carving out a space for agency rhymes well with the elements Colby and Sullivan (2008) identify as constitutive of practical reasoning: a shared and research-based foundation for knowledge, skilled know-how and ethical reflection. It is out of the integration of theoretical knowledge, practical insights and ethical reflections (Colby and Sullivan 2008), and from the space for ‘reflective and morally responsible action’ (Emirbayer and Mische 1998, 1012), that the critical-constructive role of ADs can unfold.

Methods, data and analytical framework

Background

The present study originated in a practical interest in the question of how ADs can contribute to the educational and societal purposes of higher education. Both authors are academic developers, and one is the leader of an ADU, and we have been intrigued by the conditions that affect agency in our professional practices. The case was chosen based on previous research on the same ADU and triggered when in 2020 neither of us recognised the ADU as it had been documented in 2016. We wanted to understand the change in mandate, agency and influence of the ADU, and identify resultant significant implications for enhancing academic development more broadly.

Methodology

The study was conducted by the two authors: one has been the leader of the ADU studied since its foundation in 2013; the other is an AD and higher education researcher in a different institutional and national context. The simultaneous proximity and distance to the empirical case entail both opportunities and risks (Hanson 2013; Trowler 2011). Intimate knowledge of the organisation provides rich data and contextual insights important for the analysis. Meanwhile, negotiating the delicate and ethical task of handling the multiple roles of operative agent within the institution and reflective researcher of the same, as well as any pragmatic-political interests in portraying the institution in a particular way and maintaining good relations with both leadership and staff, may influence the research process. As a leader one also has a particular ‘responsibility of care’ (Hanson 2013) for one’s staff and how they are presented. Such ethical considerations have been paramount at every stage of the study. The study has been discussed with the staff associated with the ADU and their feedback integrated in the analysis.

Data and data collection

The empirical material for this study is listed in Table 1 and consists of official and unofficial documents, notes from discussions from the years 2015–2021, transcripts of interviews with the ADU leader (conducted in 2016, 2018 and 2021²) and the ADU leader’s logbook.

Table 1. Sources of empirical data used in the study.

YEAR	OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS (EXTERNAL)^3	OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS (INTERNAL)	UNOFFICIAL DOCUMENTS	INTERVIEWS AND DISCUSSIONS
2016				Transcript of interview with ADU leader at Örebro University, 16 March 2016.
2017		Strategic Investments in Education – Academic Development Projects, Vice Chancellor’s decision, 13 June 2017, ORU 2017/02856. Appointment of Senior Lecturers with a focus on Academic Development at Örebro University, Vice Chancellor’s decision, 12 September 2017, ORU 2017/04213. Announcement of Funds for Academic Development Projects, issued jointly by the three Faculties at Örebro University, 10 October 2017, ORU 2017/04496. Job advert for Senior Lecturer in Business Administration with a focus on Academic Development, 11 October 2017, ORU 2017/04304. Örebro University’s Vision and Strategic Goals 2018–2022, Örebro University Board decision, 21 December 2017, ORU 2017/05847.	Information about the appointment of ten Senior Lecturers with a focus on Academic Development sent by the Coordinator for Strategic Planning and Education to all Heads of School and to ADU leader at Örebro University via email, 16 June 2017.
2018		The Constitution of a Strategic Board for Education at Örebro University, Vice Chancellor’s decision, 27 June 2018, ORU 2018/03515.	Logbook kept by ADU leader 2017–2021. Presentation slides by Deputy Vice Chancellor and ADU leader used at meeting with old and new members of ADU, 3 October 2018.	Transcript of focus group interview with four ADU leaders from Sweden and Norway (of which the ADU leader at Örebro University was one), conducted by two researchers in the project Formation and Competence Building of University Academic Developers, 20 December 2018.
2019	Letters from the Swedish Higher Education Authority (UKÄ) to Örebro University, 15 February 2019, 30 April 2019, ORU 2018/06341.	Örebro University’s Educational Philosophy, revised version, 15 February 2019, ORU 2019/00606. Clarification of Organization and Name of Academic Development Unit, Vice Chancellor’s decision, 2 April 2019, ORU 2019/02134. Academic Development at Örebro University, reply to the Swedish Higher Education Authority (UKÄ), signed off by Deputy Vice Chancellor, 5 April 2019, ORU 2018/06341.	Presentation slides by ADU leader used at meeting with Chair of the Örebro University Board to present the work of the ADU, 2 April 2019. Presentation slides by ADU leader used at bimonthly information meeting organized by the university leadership open to all staff at Örebro University, 9 April 2019. Manuscript and presentation slides by ADU leader used at the inauguration of the new Centre for Academic Development [Högskolepedagogiskt centrum], 20 September 2019.	Composite notes from three internal workshops held on 5 and 11 March and 1 April 2019 on the vision of the ADU, facilitated by the Head of Communications at Örebro University, with the ADU leader and three ADs participating.
2020		Preliminary Planning and Budget Conditions for Örebro University 2021–2023, Vice Chancellor’s decision, 10 June 2020, ORU 2020/03523.		Notes from collegial discussion at internal seminar within the ADU, twelve participants, notes made by ADU leader, 18 November 2020.
2021				Transcript of interview with ADU leader at Örebro University, 30 April 2021.

Official documents were gathered with the help of the university registrar specifying the search area to documents relating to the ADU, the Strategic Board for Education and strategic projects initiated in the period 2018–2021. The knowledge of the insider researcher was used for specifying these search areas. Unofficial documents were sourced from the ADU leader’s email account carrying out equivalent searches (in Sweden, data located in the email accounts of public employees constitute public information). The ADU leader had kept a personal logbook for professional reflections since March 2018, and this was used as data. Notes taken by the ADU leader from internal discussions within the ADU were also collected as empirical data. Any data sourced from this material was cleared by persons quoted in the documentation before use in this article. The interviews and discussions documented from 2020 onward were conducted for the purpose of the present study.

Data analysis

Due to the multiple roles and complex relations and power dynamics of the roles of the insider researcher, the iterative process between the two researchers was critical throughout the collection and analysis of the data. The external researcher took extra care to act as an outsider, questioning the taken for granted, posing critical questions to interpretations and conducting the first and third rounds of analysis independently. Still, her analysis relied on the sources of data and contextual information provided by the insider. Trust and integrity on the part of both researchers have therefore been key values. To put these values into practice, and moreover to avoid a dichotomy of insider versus outsider, we undertook a dialectic approach as suggested by Dwyer and Buckle (2009) and developed the analysis in the space between insider and outsider using the method of deliberative communication (Solbrekke and Sugrue 2020). Furthermore, our analytical framework was essential to maintain a critical-analytical perspective on the data, analysing it through an iterative process of interpretation and reinterpretation of data and theory with one lending meaning to the other (Alvesson and Sköldberg 2017 [2000]). This means that the data and our interpretations also inform the analytical categories, exemplifying and illustrating how this conceptual framework may be used both for analysing and developing ADUs.

The analytical framework has allowed us to discern and illuminate features of a process undergone by the ADU studied – and by the institution more broadly – as the unit has progressed from a specialised unit on the periphery of the institution to a central actor for enhancing the institution’s educational and societal contribution. The process of analysis started with the outsider researcher reading through the empirical material and identifying relevant sections in the material and themes emerging from the data and relating these to the analytical framework. The further process of analysis has been closely intertwined with the collaborative process of writing and rewriting, and with discussing our findings with colleagues at internal and external seminars and conferences.

The case

Our case provides an example of an ADU whose critical and constructive contribution to the institution’s educational mission has been radically enhanced and integrated over the last eight years, from 2013 to 2021. We have been particularly interested in following one of the threads suggested already in 2016, where ADs within the unit identified tensions in their position and voiced a more critical and deliberative approach to academic development yet to be accomplished (Fremstad et al. 2020, 115–16), envisioning a proactive position consistent with literature cited above (Kandlbinder 2007; Peseta 2014; Saroyan 2014; Sutherland 2018).

Positioned in an administrative hierarchical line with a focus on vertical brokering and technical support, the then ADs experienced a lack of recognition among academic staff and displayed limited agency. Authority and legitimacy were drawn from leadership decisions rather than from the ADs’ research-based educational mission (Fremstad et al. 2020). This contrasts with the current position and mandate of the same ADU. The unit has moved from a circumscribed function with 80% of the staff having non-academic, system-oriented backgrounds – with a mandate focused on providing courses and support for individual academic staff around the institution’s learning management system – to an interdisciplinary centre with three times more staff, of whom all are experienced teachers, and many are active researchers within the field higher education.

By studying this transition, we shed light on several key issues, such as ADs’ mandate, legitimacy, agency, autonomy and responsibility; tensions between horizontal and vertical brokering; ADs’ roles and responsibilities in relation to educational quality; and – not least – how ADs may inhabit a critical-constructive role that contributes to the societal purpose of higher education.

Analytical framework: agency and practical reasoning

Data from the case, as well as the research literature, repeatedly point to questions of agency, institutional structure and societal responsibility. In developing an analytical framework, we found that Emirbayer and Mische’s (1998) conception of agency combined with Colby and Sullivan’s (2008) theory of practical reasoning allowed us to explore the development of the ADU studied in the case in relation both to its specific context and to issues addressed in the literature on academic development. Emirbayer and Mische define agency as ‘the analytical space within which reflective and morally responsible action might be said to unfold’ (1012), and as.

a temporally embedded process of social engagement, informed by the past (in its ‘iterational’ or habitual aspect) but also oriented toward the future (as a ‘projective’ capacity to imagine alternative possibilities) and toward the present (as a ‘practical-evaluative’ capacity to contextualise past habits and future projects within the contingencies of the moment). (962)

The three temporal elements of agency, always co-existing but distinguished for analytical purposes, allow us to discern important aspects of a critical-constructive role and the agency needed for ADs to take on such a role (971):

1. ‘selective reactivation of past patterns of thought and action’ in ways that inform and form ‘practical activity, thereby giving stability and order to social universes and helping to sustain identities, interactions and institutions over time’ (iterational element)

2. the creative reconfiguration of ‘received structures of thought and action’ based on ‘actors’ hopes, fears, and desires for the future’ (projective element)

3. ‘the capacity of actors to make practical and normative judgments among alternative possible trajectories of action, in response to the emerging demands, dilemmas, and ambiguities of presently evolving situations’ and in light of projections of future possibilities (practical-evaluative element).

To better understand ADs’ capacity to make practical and normative judgments, we have found it fertile to combine this concept of agency with Colby and Sullivan’s (2008) concept of practical reasoning which includes three interrelated but analytically distinct elements’:

1. theoretical reasoning and research-based knowledge (A1)

2. ‘the craft know-how that marks expert practitioners’ (A2; 409)

3. considerations of ‘the ethical standards, social roles and responsibilities of the profession, grounded in the profession’s fundamental purposes.’ (A3; 409)

Analyzing our case, we were particularly interested in the role of collective agency, and the interdependence between collective agency and context (Peseta 2014; Saroyan 2014; Roxå and Mårtensson 2017; Sutherland 2018; Fremstad et al. 2020). Emirbayer and Mische (1998) address precisely the complex interconnectedness between structural features and agency. For them, agency is not merely individual, but includes a ‘deep involvement and participation in an ongoing community of discourse’ (995) where ‘deliberation involves more than an unreflective adjustment of habitual patterns of action to the concrete demands of the present’ (998). Importantly, it includes cognitive, moral as well as emotional engagement with the specifics of the situation and ‘a conscious searching consideration of how best to respond to situational contingencies in light of broader goals, projects and purposes’ (998–99, our emphasis).

Findings

Exploring the case through our analytical lens of agency and practical reasoning, four themes emerge as central for understanding the development and critical-constructive potential of the ADU studied:

1. the interrelation between agency and structure

2. the role of research

3. collaboration within the ADU and with academics across the university

4. a focus on contributing to society

The interrelation between agency and structure

Agency is essential for the critical-constructive role of ADs. In our study, we traced a mutual dependence between agency and institutional structure, in the sense that ADs’ agency, on the one hand, influenced their structural conditions and, on the other, relied on existing and shifting institutional structures. In line with Emirbayer and Mische (1998), who emphasise structure as key to both features of and conditions for agency, the case illustrates how collegial practices at unit level may work in tandem with, as well as directly influence, strategic decisions at leadership level, increasing ADs’ agency. We identified three key themes:

• institutional integration

• maturation and investment

• legitimacy and location

Institutional integration

In 2019, the Swedish Higher Education Authority (UKÄ) selected ‘a small number of higher education institutions’ for in-depth interviews to document good practice in the area of academic development. Our case-unit belongs to one of these institutions. In their letter to the university, UKÄ informed that this particular university was ‘selected based on our assessment that you have several success factors that can inspire other higher education institutions and contribute to a valuable exchange of experience’ (ORU 2018/06341). After interviews with teachers, students, ADs and different levels of management one of UKÄ’s interview team pointed out that 'it’s impressive that all levels of the organisation are speaking the same language’ (logbook, 30 August 2019). This comment indicates experiences of the integrated nature of academic development work and a shared vision for this work at all levels of the institution that we trace in notes from the leader’s meetings with the ADs:

One of the successes of the development in Örebro is that we’ve consciously seen it as a whole: … the integration of academic development work into institutional structures have both supported and been supported by the Centre for Academic Development [ADU] and our work. (composite notes, 1 April 2019)

When the ADU was founded in 2013, it primarily catered to the needs of academic members of staff already committed to proactively developing their teaching practices. It then worked in parallel with, and thus disconnected from, existing institutional structures in which educational quality was formally discussed, such as faculty boards or weekly deans’ meetings. The specialised nature of the ADU was structurally reenforced by the lack of forums for strategic discussions about education (Fremstad et al. 2020). An interview with the ADU leader from 2016 reveals her frustration with the absence of clear ‘pedagogical leadership in the organisation’: ‘does anyone take responsibility for academic development?’ (16 March 2016).

With new leadership of the university in 2016, strategic discussions about academic development increasingly became integrated within the ordinary work of the faculties and departments. The leader of the ADU was now able to bring strategic educational questions to the weekly deans’ meetings for informal discussion and was invited to faculty boards for strategic discussions on several occasions:

I’m amazed how the tone and depth of discussions have changed since I started [in 2013]! And they’ve started inviting me to their meetings – what a change! Tuesday’s [Humanities and Social Sciences] faculty meeting wanted to engage with the structure and coverage of our courses – I think they see how we can make a difference together. (logbook, 19 October 2018)

Another key factor for integrating academic development at the core of the university operations was the establishment of a university-wide Strategic Board for Education in 2018. The purpose of the board was to ‘initiate and coordinate educational strategic discussions that concern all faculty areas’ (ORU 2018/03515). Chaired by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the ordinary members of the board were the deans of the three faculties, the Vice Dean for the teacher education programme and the Vice Chair of the Student Union. The leader of the ADU was appointed as a permanent advisory member with a standing item on the meeting agenda (ORU 2018/03515). The introduction of this board formally moved academic development from the periphery to the centre of institutional discussions and decision making.

This gradual integration has continued, and in 2020, for the first time, the ADU leader and three other ADs were involved in the formulation of the planning and budgetary conditions for the university for 2021–2023 (ORU 2020/03523), a strategic document and an important opportunity to integrate the educational philosophy of the university into the concrete work of academics within the departments. The invitation signalled a new mandate for the ADU, now formally involved in forming the strategic direction of the university in terms of its educational mission. Emirbayer and Mische’s (1998) argument that structure and agency are intertwined, and that the one cannot be understood nor changed without the other, supports our contention that the gradual integration of academic development into the institutional structures of the university has been deeply bound up with the legitimacy, authority and agency developed by ADs over the years from 2016, a development that crucially depended on the interaction between investment in the ADU by the university leadership and the maturation of the unit.

Investment and maturation

Since 2016, the university leadership has invested systematically in academic development with a focus on providing resources both at department level and centrally: ‘The purpose of these initiatives is to work in a systematic and structured way to develop the pedagogical awareness of our teachers and raise the educational quality of our courses and programmes’ (ORU 2018/06341). A key investment by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor was to finance the recruitment of additional ADs to form a critical mass of ADs that also included academic staff from the departments. In terms of numbers, the ADU expanded from a team of three ADs in 2016, not all full-time, to twenty members of staff in 2018, all of whom had extensive teaching andmost of whom had substantial research backgrounds. Five of the posts were full-time ADs with a focus on sustainable development or digital learning, two posts were visiting professors and the remaining ten posts were new lectureships advertised in ten different disciplines across the university. In the advertised posts, lecturers were to dedicate 50% of their time to academic development work, both locally within their respective subjects and centrally as part of the ADU. The job adverts stated that.

the position includes a time-limited commission (50% for three years), which entails your own career development in terms of courses, research on academic development and responsibility for the academic development of the subject’s degree programmes, in collaboration with the subject leadership and the central academic development unit. (ORU 2017/04304)

This investment had three explicit aims: (1) ‘to stimulate academic development in the everyday practice of academics in the departments’, (2) ‘to build an interdisciplinary collegial group of staff working with academic development across the university’, and (3) ‘to build practice-oriented research on academic development, developing a research community based at the centre’ (presentation slides, 3 October 2018). Describing the growth of academic development at Örebro University in April 2019, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor notes that ‘the academic development unit has […] become and still is the hub of academic development work at Örebro University’ (ORU 2018/06341).

However, the rapid expansion of the ADU also presented challenges. One AD describes introducing several new colleagues to the practices of academic development work as ‘both exciting and extremely demanding. So many new colleagues pulling in different directions and with different experiences, some completely new to academic development. […] That task seemed quite overwhelming at times’ (notes from collegial discussion, 18 November 2020). The leader of the ADU also recalls frustration over.

finding the right forums for collegial discussions and a common purpose.(…) I think we might be getting there now, but it’s taken quite a few tries and at times it’s been a messy and pretty sprawly process. (interview, 30 April 2021)

This tandem process of investment and maturation seem an essential dimension of the agency-structure interplay. Building a strong community of ADs with a common ethical purpose and shared enterprise, but with room also for different identities and approaches, depended both on the increase in number of staff and the agentic development of a shared epistemic basis. This epistemic basis at once consists of and is a result of research-based knowledge (A1), skilled know-how (A2), and normative reflections on the educational mission, role and responsibilities of ADs (A3), and is further discussed below. The process of investment and maturation also emerged as closely linked to the location and formal reformation of the ADU and to the gradually increased legitimacy of ADs within the institution.

Legitimacy and location

Increased visibility and legitimacy of the work of ADs among academics and leaders within the institution followed with the above-described investment in highly qualified staff and was an important foundation for the organisational restructure to integrate academic development work in the formal structures of decision-making, and for changing the organisational status and location from a peripheral unit to a centre involved in strategic development. Increased contact with faculties and departments in new arenas – and in sheer numbers – ‘has raised interest and awareness within the organisation, and increased visibility and legitimacy [of academic development] across the institution’ (ORU 2018/06341).

The change of the formal name from ‘unit’ to ‘centre’, and the internal communicative value of an inauguration of this new centre, signalled strongly that academic development had been placed at the heart of the institution. Formally, the role of the centre was described as encompassing ‘academic development by staff connected with the centre and coordination of university-wide academic development work’ (ORU 2019/02134). This, the ADU leader noted, ‘made visible what we’ve tried to achieve for so long, connecting in useful ways to teachers and administrative colleagues’ (logbook, 20 September 2019).

The reorganisation into a centre seems indeed to have enabled a stronger focus on pedagogical processes when collaborating with technical expertise around digital tools. As one of the ADs puts it, keeping a technical focus on digital tools results in an uncritical transition to online modes of learning whereas the result here, with a focus on academic development – educational dilemmas, challenges and opportunities – has been that the digital tools have become an asset in our work repertoire; they provide a way into the pedagogical thinking of our academic colleagues which we can then access and question, provide different perspectives and offer alternatives. That’s been one of the real successes for us as a collective of ADs. (notes from collegial discussion, 18 November 2020)

This quotation highlights the importance of collaboration, of a shared epistemic basis for ADs’ work, and also to the educational mission being the core and compass of their critical-constructive endeavours.

The role of research, collaboration and a focus on contributing to society

Compared with 2016, we found evidence of more profound and research-based collegial relationships both within the ADU and between ADs and academics across the university in 2021. The focus for the ADU in 2016 was largely on establishing the still relatively new unit by fulfilling vertical expectations and institutionally defined mandates, providing courses and system-oriented support of digital tools. In 2021, however, the ADs in the unit are building an epistemic community, with a purpose-based focus on the educational and societal mission of the university. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor notes in April 2019 that collaborative and focused efforts strengthen pedagogical focus across the institution:

Our experience is that the more systematically our academic development unit works with educational development in the organisation, not least around examination, sustainable development (including gender mainstreaming), student formation and course activities, the greater the demand from the departments. The pedagogical awareness is increasing across the university, highlighting the need to work continuously with academic development. (ORU 2018/06341)

Development of a shared epistemic basis among the ADs emerge as essential for collaboration both within the ADU and with academics, university leaders, administrative staff, students and external contacts. During the five years between 2016 and 2021, all three forms of knowledge identified by Colby and Sullivan (2008) have deliberately been strengthened: the research base through recruitment and activities to support and promote engagement with research as well as the pursuit of practice-oriented research; the know-how through experience, engagement with research and shared reflections, and through recruiting ADs from various departments thus including teaching experience from different disciplines; and the ethical dimension through a deliberate and deliberative focus on the societal and educational purpose of the work within the ADU, specifically related to sustainability. One AD expresses the sense that ‘both teachers and students need to become change agents in our complex world, full of wicked problems’, and another talks about the importance of ‘supporting our teachers to think about the higher purposes of their different subjects. That’s a reflection they need to do for the students to experience their studies as meaningful in a broader, social sense’ (notes from collegial discussion, 18 November 2020), suggesting that the ethical and societal dimensions are considered central to the ADs’ contribution to educational quality.

The focus on this educational mission, and on working ‘with the teachers for the students’ (the ADU motto), seems to have been essential for building a community for practice-oriented research on academic development and teaching and learning for members of the ADU, but also for supporting academics across the university in conducting research on their own educational practices. This collective basis of knowledge and experience is essential for agency, functioning as an iterational repertoire from which to selectively reactivate established patterns of thought and action, and from which to creatively envision possible futures, in ways that inform and form decisions and practices (Emirbayer and Mische 1998). The lack of such a shared repertoire of knowledge and know-how anchored in research and the educational mission prior to 2016 was identified as an important reason why the ADU then lacked the collective agency to enact envisioned critical-constructive responsibilities (Fremstad et al. 2020).

Discussion

A critical-constructive academic development is a huge responsibility and rests not with ADs alone, but is shared between all members of the university. The case studied suggests that when certain conditions are created, by leadership and ADs as a collective, ADs may take a proactive, critical-constructive role, in the sense that they, based on research, practical insights and ethical considerations (Colby and Sullivan 2008), may question the status quo, critically address institutional trends, developments, discourses and practices that counter the educational and societal mission of the university, while constructively proposing alternative approaches (Emirbayer and Mische 1998; Kalleberg 2009). ADs could not take on this role in isolation, but as an integrative and deliberative force within the institution, who through collaboration inspire, constructively challenge, as well as learn from academics, leaders, administrators and students (Green and Little 2013; Fremstad et al. 2020; Sutherland 2018).

While previous studies stress the tension between horizontal and vertical brokering (Land 2004; Sugrue et al. 2018), our study suggests that there need not be a contradiction between the two. This case suggests that institutional strategies can in fact be supportive of ADs’ horizontal work. Moreover, ADs’ critical-constructive participation in the formulation of institutional strategies and priorities is both an expression of their collective agency and a structural condition for this agency.

The projective dimension of agency – that is, a creative reconfiguration of ‘received structures of thought and action’ based on ‘actors’ hopes, fears, and desires for the future’ (Emirbayer and Mische 1998, 970) – is essential for enacting the societal contribution of higher education precisely because it is so closely intertwined with ethical purpose, values and responsibilities (Colby and Sullivan 2008) and with critical-constructive explorations of structures and practices.

While our case exemplifies the critical-constructive potential of agentic ADs, we do not claim that the ADU in this case fully realises this potential, nor that the conditions in which these ADs work are ideal. It has not been the aim of this study to decide the extent to which this potential is realised in practice, but rather to conceptualise the critical-constructive potential and to understand, analytically, conditions supportive of such a role. Mindful of the risk of presenting an overly positive picture, we believe that the study has pointed out relevant and important possible futures for research on and development of academic development. How universities, institutional structures and ADs’ own knowledge, practices and attitudes support – or constrain – critical-constructive approaches need to be studied in greater depth. Also, more research through the lens of organisational theory is needed to understand the institutional implications and conditions of such approaches. In what ways ADs across institutions and nations would embrace such comprehensive and demanding responsibility is another area to explore further. Notwithstanding, this study offers an analytical framework for future research, as well as for a critical-constructive development of institutional structures and practices.

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to colleagues at the University of Borås, University of Örebro and University of Oslo for valuable comments and suggestions on early drafts, and we are hugely grateful to the anonymous referees who offered detailed and insightful suggestions in the final stages of writing.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Research Council of Norway [Grant Number 246745/H20].

Notes

1 FINNUT project 246745/H20, https://www.uv.uio.no/iped/english/research/projects/solbrekke-formation-and-competence-building/

2 The first two interviews were performed as part of the Formation and Competence Building of University Academic Developers project, approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (ref. 45852).

3 All translations of documents from Swedish to English are our own.