Theorising new possibilities for Scholarship of Teaching and Learning and teaching-focused academics

ABSTRACT

Definitions and understandings of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL), scholarly teaching, and research are multiple and often conflicting. Reflecting on Boyer’s intention for academic work to be recognised as overlapping and interconnected, in this paper we examine some of the commonly assumed models of Boyer’s scholarship of teaching and the creation of SoTL, in light of more recent arguments for SoTL to be recognised as part of research policies and frameworks. We explore the implications of these conceptions for academics with a mandate to engage with SoTL, such as teaching-focused academics. Through our analysis, we challenge the increasing interest in defining, separating and categorising academic work as ‘teaching-focused’ or ‘research-focused’ and work towards acknowledging the supercomplexity present in conceptualisations of research and SoTL. We suggest a shift in SoTL scholarly discourse from a shared to a nuanced understanding that recognises the variation in ways people practice SoTL as a strength. To this end, we offer a trifocal framework of supercomplexity, theoretical reconstruction and an ethic of care. This framework appreciates the plurality of SoTL ways of knowing and doing as an opportunity, opening new vistas of possibility for theory and practice.

KEYWORDS:

• Teaching-focused academic (TFA)
• Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL)
• supercomplexity
• theoretical reconstruction
• ethic of care

Introduction

Boyer’s popularised conception of scholarship in Scholarship Reconsidered (1990) is now over three decades old. Boyer’s primary intention in 1990 was to recognise academics’ multifaceted role and purpose in the academy, which included more than just research publication. Out of his work emerged the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL), a movement to operationalise the enhancement of teaching in the academy. As an international field of study, SoTL builds the scholarly nature of teaching by integrating practice with research in an ongoing inquiry into student learning (Geertsema, 2016; Healey, 2000; Hutchings & Shulman, 1999; Hutchings et al., 2011). However, the contemporary academy is a very different environment, with changes that Boyer could not have predicted (Krause, 2020). Along with the increasing uptake of SoTL, there has been a proliferation of definitions and assumptions about this work, resulting in confusion about boundaries between research and SoTL. For example, Potter and Kustra (2011) stated that by ‘defining teaching as scholarship of something, he [Boyer] inadvertently enabled the biases of the academic community to turn SoTL into yet another form of research prioritised over teaching’ (p. 13). As a consequence, the expansion of SoTL activities and compounding definitions has facilitated robust conceptual and discursive debate, including calls to abandon the term ‘SoTL’ altogether.

This paper considers SoTL and its association with the academy’s emerging role and functions of teaching-focused academics (TFA) in light of this debate. To begin, we revisit Boyer’s Scholarship Reconsidered (1990), reflecting on universities’ changing purpose and function and the academics that reside within them. Then, we examine the creation of SoTL, highlighting the benefits and challenges of the multiple and sometimes conflicting conceptions of what it is and is not. Finally, we draw on recent studies exploring SoTL and research policies and frameworks for TFAs. We reflect on the trouble of continuing to problematise the research and teaching debate with academic categorisations. Finally, we address the status and sustainability of TFA roles through the integration of three lenses: supercomplexity, theoretical reconstruction and an ethic of care. We argue that SoTL exemplifies Barnett's (2020) notion of supercomplexity and that the creation of more definitions, categorisations and new conceptualisations of scholarship, SoTL and research deepens the (supercomplex) confusion many academics are already feeling.

The paper concludes with a proposal for an alternate approach to TFA work to better acknowledge and explore its complex nature. Drawing on our findings from a previous study, we explore how academics live purposefully with the academy's supercomplexity of teaching, research, and SoTL. We recommend a reconstructionist approach to focus on examples of the lived experience of TFAs and their recognition, development, empowerment, and possibility. Such an approach resonates with theorising in the imaginarium (Trowler, 2012) and provides hope for academics and guidance for TFAs, even though SoTL remains conceptually elusive and difficult to operationalise in terms of institutional policies and practice (Fanghanel et al., 2016; Krause, 2020; Rawn & Fox, 2018). By acknowledging that SoTL is contested – at times even inconsistently defined – we argue for a shift in scholarly discourse from a shared understanding of SoTL to that of a nuanced understanding, where variation in SoTL is not a problem to be solved, but rather a source of possibility. To that end, we contribute a trifocal framework of supercomplexity, theoretical reconstruction and an ethic of care that illuminates and appreciates the plurality of SoTL ways of knowing and doing.

The purpose of higher education and academic work

Scholarship Reconsidered was seminal in guiding new conversations about the structure and function of scholarly activity because Boyer (1990) questioned what it meant to be an academic. Discussing faculty in the United States higher education system, Boyer identified job expectations, reward systems, and the broader missions of higher education systems as causing conflict for the academics working in universities. In doing so, Boyer focused attention on the challenge of defining academic work in a way that enriches, rather than restricts and separates, the full range of scholarly functions expected of an academic. Boyer questioned what the term ‘scholarship’ precisely means:

What we have now is a more restricted view of scholarship, one that limits it to a hierarchy of functions. Basic research has come to be viewed as the first and most essential form of scholarly activity, with other functions flowing from it … But knowledge is not necessarily developed in such a linear manner. The arrow of causality can, and frequently does, point in both directions. Theory surely leads to practice. But practice also leads to theory. And teaching, at its best, shapes both research and practice. Viewed from this perspective, a more comprehensive, more dynamic understanding of scholarship can be considered, one in which the rigid categories of teaching, research, and service are broadened and more flexibly defined. (Boyer et al., 2016, p. 68)

Through this questioning, Boyer identified that the tension and conflict academics felt between their teaching and research functions in the academy was demoralising, arguing that ‘professors want, and need, better ways for the full range of their aspirations and commitments to be acknowledged’ (Boyer et al., 2016, p. 77). To (re)examine the purpose of being an academic, Boyer prompted a move away from rigid and competing categories of academic work towards an interacting model that recognises and supports rhythms and connections between varied types of scholarship and the development of knowledge in the academy. However, the changing landscape of higher education has found institutions continue to divide and compare knowledge and expertise.

The changing knowledge function of universities

Cultivating and producing knowledge without the obligation to demonstrate its influence was once the core business of universities and their academics (Boshier, 2009). Historically, universities were places of learning that contributed to society through knowledge creation and dissemination. However, knowledge has become easily accessible due to global market forces, resulting in universities no longer being the leading expert and authority of knowledge. In this way, ‘the knowledge function of the university is being undermined’ (Barnett, 2000, p. 416). Academic knowledge has become characterised by contestability, challengeability and uncertainty as higher education institutions transform in a context of globalisation and knowledge accessibility (Barnett, 2000, 2020). In this way, higher education has created turmoil and chaos, as well as conceptual and emotional insecurity for academics and their work, in what Barnett (2000, 2020) calls the supercomplex era.

In the supercomplex era, there are deep reflective questions about the function and purpose of higher education, as knowledge is proliferating and has multiple formations. This supercomplex landscape has created unstable professional identities for academic staff. What it means to be an academic is precarious while the ‘frameworks through which we make sense of the world are in dispute’ and ‘no secure categories through which to anchor oneself in the world’ (Barnett, 2020, p. 231) exist.

In response to these challenges, many universities have reacted to the changing purpose and function of knowledge in higher education by using Boyer’s (1990) model as a guide to name and subdivide the knowledge functions of academics. Subsequently, some academics now engage predominantly in research functions, and others have a heavy teaching load and demonstrate excellence through SoTL (Geertsema, 2016; Hutchings & Shulman, 1999; Mathany et al., 2017). For example, many TFA classifications in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada have a SoTL mandate (Rawn & Fox, 2018; Simmons et al., 2021), but have no allowance for disciplinary research time in their role, in contrast to traditional academic positions that include time allocations for teaching, research, and service/leadership (Bennett et al., 2017).

SoTL and the knowledge enterprise

There is an extensive and ongoing debate about how SoTL is understood as a form of research in institutions or as an investigation of practice and professional activity (Miller-Young & Yeo, 2015; Poole, 2013; Tight, 2018). SoTL is often seen as ‘a mechanism for academics to understand more about how students learn on their courses and as resources for reflection on teaching’ (Boud & Brew, 2013, p. 219). It is an encompassing view of scholarship that acknowledges the complexities of being a scholarly practitioner, not all of which are peer-reviewed and critiqued (Bernstein, 2013; Chick, 2014; Geertsema, 2016; Mathany et al., 2017). For individuals, being an informed scholarly teacher can include a range of activities, such as undertaking studies that result in peer-reviewed published works or reading papers (Chick, 2014; Fanghanel et al., 2016; Poole, 2013). The nature of engaging in SoTL can ‘shift from an imperative of proof to an imperative of understanding … from an imperative of generalisable simplicity to one of representing complexity well’ (Poole, 2013, p. 141).

However, the complexity of SoTL’s is not well recognised at the institutional level, where economic functions are arguably prioritised over educational value (Cotton et al., 2018; John & Fanghanel, 2015; Tierney, 2017, 2020); where the same marketisation and managerialism drivers shape institutional discourses and practices of SoTL (John & Fanghanel, 2015; Tight, 2018).

The term ‘SoTL’ has been compared and conflated with traditional notions of research in neoliberal institutions influenced by rankings (Canning & Masika, 2020; Cotton et al., 2018; Tierney, 2020). For example, Canning and Masika (2020) argue that SoTL research (i.e., peer-reviewed research) is a threat to the validity of disciplinary research because the term ‘SoTL’ includes work that does not have theoretical underpinnings or engage in existing scholarship. They argue that SoTL is ‘diluted and muddied’ (Canning & Masika, 2020, p. 8). Even though Bernstein (2013) argues that universities should better acknowledge SoTL’s range of activities as tangible assets beyond the standard versions of scholarly distribution, such as research publication, there are distinct categories, measurements, and rewards systems used by institutions for teaching and SoTL (Boshier, 2009; Chalmers, 2011; Tierney, 2020; Vardi & Quin, 2011). SoTL outputs and engagement is often viewed as ‘less than’ or inferior to traditional research (Canning & Masika, 2020; Cotton et al., 2018; Tierney, 2020). For example, Canning and Masika (2020) argue that SoTL research (i.e., peer-reviewed research) is a threat to the validity of disciplinary research because the term ‘SoTL’ includes work that does not have theoretical underpinnings or engage in existing scholarship. They argue that SoTL is ‘diluted and muddied’ (Canning & Masika, 2020, p. 8).

The SoTL and research nexus raises significant questions for TFAs with a SoTL mandate. Their separation from traditional research activities, often replaced with SoTL, has created an epistemological battleground of knowledge (Krause, 2020) with limited support structures to help teachers understand the place of SoTL (Tierney, 2017). Some academics have even expressed that TFA positions are a damaging career move (Bennett et al., 2017). Furthermore, national research performance policies and frameworks confuse TFAs, as they rank institutional performance based on research outputs and often conflate TFA work with ‘teaching only’ roles that are used to capture casual or sessional academic appointments, appointments outside of a career progression pathway (Godbold et al., 2022b).

SoTL and research policies and frameworks

As university research impact is captured and reported nationally and internationally, there has been further debate about how SoTL is recognised and where it sits among performance measures. Tierney (2020) strongly advocates for SoTL's inclusion in the UK Research Excellence Framework, arguing that research is still integral to TFA identities. In this way, Tierney's (2020) debate challenge calls to abandon the term ‘SoTL’ (Canning & Masika, 2020) by arguing for better strategies to recognise SoTL as research based on its value and merits rather than its deficits in a research-dominated culture.

Like Tierney (2020), Simmons et al. (2021) contribute to the growing recommendation that institutions make SoTL explicit as part of institutional research plans and include SoTL in research forums and presentations. Simmons et al. invited teaching-focused faculty (many of which had a SoTL mandate) from Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States to share narrative examples of institutional challenges they faced. They found that the separation of SoTL from standard research processes in institutional policies and frameworks caused tension for academics with a teaching focus. They frequently lacked access to funding to support their SoTL research projects and reported a lack collegial rapport for SoTL in departments, resulting in SoTL not recognised as a form of ‘real research’ (Simmons et al., 2021, p. 68).

In Australia, the number of TFA positions has risen dramatically in the past decade, with many having a SoTL mandate (Bennett et al., 2017; Probert, 2015). To address the experience of ‘devaluing’ of SoTL described above, Krause (2020) argues that SoTL be included in institutional research plans and documents. Furthermore, that SoTL needs to be included in the national Excellence in Research Australia scheme, to mitigate against the systematic privileging of discipline-based research over teaching in Australian universities (Krause, 2020). Drawing on Barnett (2000, 2020), Krause also argues that leaders should use supercomplexity as an entirely new paradigm to approach the hierarchical and supercomplex nature of knowledge and research in institutions before policy changes.

Like Krause, we believe that supercomplexity offers an alternate paradigm to viewing higher education. By using a supercomplexity lens to think about knowledge development within the university, it is clear that SoTL, research, practice, policy, and theory operate within a challenging environment that we cannot easily solve. Adopting a supercomplexity lens enables honest conversations about SoTL and TFAs and their functions and contributions to knowledge development within the academy. However, we caution that adding SoTL to research frameworks and institutional policies would fall into the trap of research continuing to be privileged and prioritised in the university, resulting in all other scholarly contributions such as teaching and local SoTL activities (Bernstein, 2013) afforded a lower status. In this way ‘change in higher education policy is relatively easy in comparison with identifying strategies for change in the values and practices that drive those policies’ (Bernstein, 2013, p. 38).

TFAs’ lived experience

Instead of fitting SoTL into the dominant narrative of research, by focusing on how TFAs navigate the challenges of their work by studying their lived experience, it is possible to develop a different view of SoTL. For example, Zeng and Fickel (2021) conducted an ethnographic study of teaching-oriented academics and their lived experiences amid research discourses in a university in China. Their study focused on how these academics ascertain what ‘real’ research is in their daily professional lives. The authors identify dialogue between teaching-oriented academics and academics with different focus areas as beneficial for navigating and changing institutional conceptions of research (Zeng & Fickel, 2021). Understanding how TFAs navigate challenges opens avenues to better recognise, develop and empower these academics.

This study resonates with our in-depth institutional study conducted in Australia, in which we explored TFAs’ lived experiences in a research-intensive university where a SoTL mandate adds additional complexity to their academic role (Godbold et al., 2022a). This study revealed several ways in which these academics were navigating the supercomplex landscape they worked in (Barnett, 2000, 2020). By connecting with academics outside the TFA role, they were able to shift discussions away from legitimising SoTL towards acknowledging the different roles, purposes, and contributions academics hold in the university (Godbold et al., 2022a). For example, TFAs in this study saw that

being a TFA is to enhance the teaching practices of colleagues that are not as engaged in teaching, an outcome different to previous studies that warn of strain and isolation on teaching identity when working with colleagues that have differing views of the importance of teaching. (Godbold et al., 2022a)

We argue that studying the lived experience of TFAs enables us to listen, share and hopefully respond to the complex experiences of TFAs beyond the dichotomy of SoTL vs research.

Discussion

The transitory nature of the purpose and function of the university over the past three decades has directly influenced the conceptualisations of SoTL and TFA work. Changes in the value of knowledge and the economic imperatives of institutions includes how the academy has problematised the concept of academic labour. The subdivision of knowledge and academic work has continued under the perception that (teaching) focused academic positions better legitimises and values teaching within an organisation that privileges knowledge generation through traditional research. However, academic literature continues to report tensions with academic roles and corresponding contributions; tensions further embedded in performance and reporting policies, definitions, and mandates that differ for SoTL activities to those of disciplinary research; tensions that drive the implementation of TFA roles and SoTL globally.

Given this context, we need to consider new ways to address the status and sustainability of TFAs in higher education. We argue that there is a need to identify SoTL and scholarship discussions, practices, and research, particularly in a context where TFA roles are unfolding in a broader landscape significantly shaped by neoliberal ideologies.

In our view, there is a benefit in using Barnett’s (2020) social theory of supercomplexity to describe this situation. Using supercomplexity allows us to acknowledge that research policies and frameworks, academic classifications, and the nature of SoTL will remain contentious, uncertain, challenging, and never fully ratified, because reflection and debate on supercomplex issues result in new ideas, discourse, further insights, and further conceptual dispute (Barnett, 2020). The benefit of using supercomplexity to describe this landscape is that it offers us a way of seeing and acknowledging SoTL, knowledge, and research challenges as never fully resolved.

If we acknowledge the supercomplex nature of SoTL and scholarship, we must consider that a shared understanding of SoTL may not be working for the academics who engage with SoTL the most. We propose an alternative when discussing the evolving roles of TFAs and the evolving nature of SoTL: a trifocal lens integrating supercomplexity, theoretical reconstruction, and an ethic of care. This trifocal lens illuminates the many ways TFAs successfully navigate SoTL and complex university contexts. We argue that moving past fixation on a shared understanding of SoTL (which implies there is one correct way to engage with SoTL), opportunities arise to see the co-existence of multiple ways of SoTL knowing and doing within the university. In other words, what if the scholarly discourse on SoTL shifted away from an understanding that was shared? By accepting the complexity of the SoTL, new vistas of possibility emerge and enable scholars to capture the plurality of SoTL as it is being practised.

Accepting supercomplexity involves recognising plurality

The multiple and conflicting ideologies and discourses regarding the concept of scholarship and SoTL exemplifies Barnett’s (2020) notion of supercomplexity. We argue that SoTL is supercomplex. Therefore, if we continue to strive for shared understanding and recognition of what SoTL is (and is not), we contribute to its supercomplex nature. Categorising, classifying and subdividing knowledge and people creates more competition, isolation and emotional insecurity in academic professionals. Applying supercomplexity to our discussion of SoTL and academic work allows us to be honest and accept that adding more time, resources, and definitions to SoTL deepens supercomplexity. Reflection and debate result in new ideas, discourse, additional insights, and conceptual dispute (Barnett, 2020).

Acknowledging the supercomplex nature of SoTL and knowledge in the university offers us an opportunity to change the divisive and challenging narrative of SoTL and research. Prefacing future conversations with supercomplexity frames the uncertain, challenging, and complex nature of knowledge conversations as an inescapable feature of academia. We believe such an approach would be a first step in forging a new way forward in which we can become comfortable with knowledge uncertainty, not by denying how things are but instead finding purpose and meaning within the supercomplex university. However, it requires the use of a new theoretical approach that imagines new possibilities of creation and emancipation.

Theoretical reconstruction arising through an ethic of care

Conceptualisations of SoTL in the university often attempt to solve the broader problem of understanding the purpose and place of teachers in a heavily research-oriented landscape. Despite decades of work conceptualising SoTL (and scholarship), we still have academics reporting tension and conflict in its purpose and place in their professional lives (Fanghanel et al., 2016; Rawn & Fox, 2018; Simmons et al., 2021). We see a new approach is needed, where ‘the relationship between theory and the world is turned on its head: theory does not explain the world, rather the world is constructed and reconstructed through theory’ (Trowler, 2012, p. 277). Drawing on Trowler’s (2012) reflections, we call for a shift from explaining the rivalrous nature of knowledge in the world towards a theoretical reconstructionist approach to SoTL and TFA work.

We need first the courage of our convictions, then the courage to challenge our convictions, and finally the imagination to sustain our courage with theoretical reconstruction. (Trowler, 2012, p. 281)

We argue that there is a need for more contributions from scholars to the social reconstruction approach for SoTL. Described by Trowler as theorising in the imaginarium, social reconstruction offers scholars an avenue to recognise and share the realities of those scholars who engage with SoTL most. Trowler (2012) defines theoretical reconstruction as sharing differing experiences of recognition, development, empowerment, and human community, leading to emancipation, possibility, and learning from these examples. Extending Poole’s (2013) argument for a shift away from imperatives of proof and generalisable simplicity to representing complexity well, theorising in the imaginarium is a way for scholars to examine the nuance of SoTL and the variety of ways in which scholars engage with it.

For example, in our study, TFAs saw their purpose in the supercomplex context of the university as influencing and enhancing the teaching practices of their research peers in caring and constructive ways that enable recognition, development, and community (Godbold et al. 2022a). Supercomplexity was evident as TFAs ‘felt a conceptual overload whereby knowledge is characterised by contestability, challengeablity, uncertainty, and unpredictability in their disciplines and institution’ (Godbold et al. 2022a). However, TFAs found acceptance, purpose, recognition, and opportunity in curating spaces supportive of teaching and learning enhancement for others. They felt cared for and reported a sense of connection, value, and knowledge contribution to the institution; a different outcome from the strain and isolation due to teaching and research divisions and classifications. When there was space for TFAs to share how they understood and engaged with SoTL, they showed complex understandings of their practices, roles, and responsibilities within the university. Building from our learnings in this study, we advocate for more studies that share these lived experiences in supercomplex contexts through theoretical reconstructionism.

However, there are systematic issues with higher education institutional policies for TFAs and SoTL, that result in many academics feeling isolated, divided, and not adequately cared for, despite caring deeply for the practice of teaching themselves (Godbold et al. 2022a; Krause, 2020; Simmons et al., 2021; Tierney, 2020). To focus on nuance and complexity, and thus create new realities for SoTL scholars, we also identify there is a need to change a careless discourse (Bozalek et al., 2014; Noddings, 2013). By opening up to this change, social reconstruction should also give rise to ‘caring’ realities. To do this, we must recognise the nuances of SoTL practice and start acknowledging the inherent value of the humans involved in the SoTL process (Herman et al., 2018). We can achieve this by moving towards an ethic of care, and a more profound examination of the lived experiences and nuanced practices of academics who engage in SoTL (Godbold et al. 2022a).

In summary, we argue for a shift in SoTL scholarly discourse, from shared to nuanced understanding, and offer the trifocal framework of supercomplexity, theoretical reconstructionism and an ethic of care. We make this argument after seeing the benefits of understanding and sharing the supercomplex lived experiences of TFAs already navigating this space. Sharing the lived experience of TFAs enabled us to listen, share and respond to the needs and experiences of these academics with care. In doing so, we enable recognition, development, and empowerment for TFAs and their SoTL practices. Or, as Trowler (2012) says, creation and emancipation for these academics. For those academics who rely on SoTL in their role descriptions and promotion criteria (e.g., TFAs), there is also the need to add an ethic of care and social reconstructionism, given that these academics are navigating an environment that feels careless. By being honest about and accepting supercomplexity, we believe we may see the beginning of genuinely challenging the status quo in a way that can bring about real change in the way SoTL is recognised.

New possibilities for SoTL and TFAs

The challenges facing TFA are significant for the future of higher education. Our desire for this paper is to find ways of better understanding, supporting, and caring for TFAs and their nuanced contributions to universities. This can be done by integrating three lenses—supercomplexity, theoretical reconstruction, and an ethic of care—when discussing the evolving roles of TFAs and the evolving nature of SoTL. This idea arose from our previous studies of TFAs’ lived experiences and the benefits we saw in sharing their experiences and practices in the university. We acknowledge that this paper does not solve all the challenges TFAs face in the university. In some ways, it raises more questions. However, we intend to put forward a vision for the future of TFAs and their SoTL work. From this vision, we advocate that future research begin to reconstruct and remap significant changes for TFAs across countries and contexts. Like Smith and Walker (2021), we call for further studies of the supercomplex experiences of academics to better understand their lived experiences. Further, we see an ethic of care becoming even more imperative as we navigate a post-COVID-19 world where TFAs continue to face significant challenges. Understanding the lived experiences of TFAs requires a focus on understanding (and thus, caring) for TFAs by recognising their work as overlapping, interconnected, and reflective of multifaceted rhythms (as Boyer intended).

Conclusion

In the knowledge age, universities are increasingly in competition to prove their value and status globally. Such a context has created uncertain and confusing messages for academics working within these landscapes. Boyer’s well-cited work Scholarship Reconsidered (1990) highlights these challenges and raises important questions about how we recognise how academics create knowledge. However, the literature reveals that three decades after Boyer’s (1990) seminal work, we are no closer to consensus in our conceptualisations of academic work and knowledge in a supportive, inclusive, flexible or dynamic way. Instead, the increasing trend towards creating academic categorisations, such as TFA positions, further fragments the notion that academic functions are overlapping and interconnected. By separating, categorising, and defining teaching and research to solve the problem, institutions exacerbate the competitive and hierarchical nature of knowledge.

Through reflecting on Boyer’s intention for academic work to be recognised as overlapping and interconnected, we call for more sharing of how TFAs live purposefully among supercomplexity. As scholars, we must acknowledge that by continuing to add to the conceptual and discursive debate of what SoTL and research are, we are continuing to deepen the supercomplexity many are feeling in the university. Instead, we argue that we need to redirect our energies towards theorising in the imaginarium: in sharing the ways TFAs are navigating the supercomplex nature of universities and SoTL, we can elevate an ethic of care, sharing experiences of hope and emancipation for academics engaging with SoTL. Moving forward, a new reality of a thriving scholarly community for TFAs could be realised by discussing TFA roles and SoTL in new ways.

Disclosure statement

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