Academic development as educational inquiry? Insights from established practices

Abstract

If academic development is to contribute to (re)shaping the purposes and means of pedagogy in higher education, then it has to be based on educational inquiry, for only inquiry will allow us to undertake a critical analysis of educational policies, practices and beliefs with the goal of transforming them. However, the conditions under which academic development units (ADUs) operate may hinder rather than foster educational inquiry. This is the issue we explore in this paper on the basis of a small-scale, interview-based study that was conducted in six well-established ADUs at universities in the USA. By looking at how these units work, we gained insights into paradoxes and tensions that seem to indicate that educational inquiry cannot play a significant role within them, even though these units act as catalysts for the enhancement of teaching in the academic milieu. We should ask whether ADUs are appropriate sites for educational inquiry and whether they can contribute to (re)shaping the higher education landscape.

Keywords:

• academic development
• educational inquiry
• pedagogical vision
• research
• scholarship of teaching and learning

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the directors of Units A–F for collaborating in our study.

Notes

1. The authors use the designation ‘academic development unit’ (ADU) as a generic term for units usually named ‘teaching and learning centre’, ‘centre for the enhancement of teaching’, ‘faculty development centre’ and so on.

2. The state where the ADUs are located was selected to represent a wide range of different universities. Unit A belongs to one of the largest public universities of the country and attracts students from all over the USA. Units B and C are attracting regional and local students. The private universities (units D, E and F) attract students from the region and students who choose the institution for its specific confessional values. All units have a tradition in academic development of 10 years or more. Given the exploratory nature of the study, the authors believe the sample to be diverse and appropriate for its purpose.

3. At Unit F, another staff member also took part in the interview. The interviews took around 60 minutes, with two exceptions: at Unit C it was longer (around 90 minutes) because of the extensive technology focus of the unit, which was an initial extra theme of the interview; at Unit E it was shorter (around 20 minutes) due to the limited size and scope of the unit.

4. In our analysis, illustrative excerpts from the interviews are presented and their implications as regards our research question discussed, which means that it is not our purpose in this paper to provide a comprehensive review of the interview data or detailed descriptions of ADUs.