Diversity matters: academic development in times of uncertainty and beyond*

The complexity of navigating change in the face of a pandemic was underscored in the previous editorial of IJAD (Huijser et al., 2020). As we compose this editorial, the pandemic’s presence and its influence continue to manifest themselves. It is possible to detect some general patterns of change in the higher education landscape as a response to the pandemic, for instance, the sudden disruption to face-to-face teaching. However, we also recognise that these patterns belie a great diversity of responses to adopting and adapting to online and hybrid teaching by faculty members, various approaches to supporting teachers by academic developers, and differing institutional values and contexts within which all these activities occur. Recognising and honouring diversity in these complex scenarios of change may prevent us from too hastily embracing a ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution.

Diversity has always been a thread in conversations about academic development. In the very first issue of IJAD, Brew and Boud (1996) drew academic developers’ attention to the fact that ‘university teachers are being appointed from a greater range of backgrounds and types of experience and performing an increasingly diverse range of roles’ (p. 17). Because of this diversity, negotiation and flexibility are essential for academic developers, especially in communicating with teachers (Brew & Boud, 1996). Looking at the broader picture almost 15 years later, Taylor (2010) drew attention to the value of diverse national, institutional, and disciplinary contexts of academic development work and argued that academic development as ‘a situated phenomenon’ needs to vary its responses to these diverse contexts. Brew (2002) observed that academic developers have contributed to a broad set of areas, including policies, practices, strategies, student and teacher learning, institutional evaluation, action research on teaching practice, and inquiry into research methodologies. Academic development is not just influenced by the external environment but itself contains a rich diversity of conceptual lenses and research methods (Taylor, 2011). And most recently, IJAD published an article eloquently titled, ‘“The danger of a single story:” A reflection on institutional change, voices, identities, power, and outcomes’ (Chng et al., 2019). In this article – a collation of the views expressed in the opening plenary of the International Consortium for Educational Development 2018 conference in Atlanta – the authors argue for the need to embrace diversity in ideologies, voices, and identities in academic development, especially when addressing change.

As we read through the articles in this issue, we realised that many if not most of the aforementioned forms of diversity feature, and each of the articles in different ways highlights, these forms of diversity. Shephard, Rogers, and Brogt (2020) explore how academics understand the impact of engaging in teaching and learning research on their development as teachers. Findings reveal that academics ‘report varied perceptions about the impact of their educational research on their development as teachers, varied opinions about the nature of scholarship and of their identity as a scholar, and varied success in using the products of their research endeavours to inform their teaching practice’ (p. 214). The authors discuss the significance of these insights for academic developers in supporting academics to develop a scholarly professional identity that integrates their various roles.

Drawing on a qualitative research synthesis of articles on academic developers’ support to academics with respect to internationalisation of the curriculum (IoC), Wimpenny, Beelen, and King (2020) raise its relative neglect by existing studies of academics’ different development needs as these relate to IoC. To address this gap, the authors suggest that an ‘open, enquiring, and collaborative approach’ (p. 228) to IoC is needed and that further studies should be conducted in different contexts, such as beyond western countries and outside of higher education. These efforts should, according to the authors, ensure support to IoC that is ‘suited to any staff member, from any culture, working in any culture’ (p. 228).

Diversity is a hallmark of the teaching-focused blended and online faculty mentoring programmes explored in the literature review by Hundey, Anstey, Cruickshank, and Watson (2020). Drawing on data from programmes across countries, institutions, and disciplines, the authors note a kaleidoscope of ways in which the notion of mentoring is defined, conceptualised, enacted, and assessed ‘to support diverse professional development goals’ (p. 232). Findings explore programme outcomes for individuals, interpersonal connections, and institutions, as well as multiple factors inherent in the design and implementation of current programmes. Drawing on an analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and challenges associated with the various programmes, the authors provide eight evidence-informed recommendations for academic developers who seek to design and deliver blended and online faculty mentoring programmes.

Lennon and Barnes (2020) highlight the ubiquitous adoption of online spaces – blogs, in the case of their article – in the current higher education environment. These spaces have ushered in a ‘diversity and complexity of social, historical, affective, technological, and spatial forces, fluxes, and flows’ (p. 256) that stretch the conceptualisation of the current academic development regime. The complex dynamics of such diversity are amplified by a reliance on online spaces as the sole and inevitable solution to unexpected and sometimes unavoidable disruptions (we might think here, for example, of the current global pandemic). The authors thus recommend that academic developers become aware of ‘how other worlds collide and coalesce’ (p. 256) when moving academics into online spaces.

Reinholz, Stone-Johnstone, and Shah (2020) investigate the use of the EQUIP (‘Equity Quantified In Participation’) tool by three university mathematics instructors to tackle implicit bias in classroom teaching. Framed in the context of an increasingly diverse student population in the US, the authors argue for a data-driven approach to decrease implicit bias – a challenge prevalent in classrooms with diverse populations. The authors subsequently suggest that academic developers can be more actively engaged in tackling biases by using data collected in the classroom, and that ‘reflection on instructional analytics can be a productive way for instructors to engage with their implicit biases and change their teaching practices’ (p. 269).

Murphy (2020) stages a debate regarding whether students should receive preparation for active learning. His article encourages readers to move beyond two simple ends (prepare vs not prepare) and instead to consider multiple aspects of the question, such as ‘performance impact, perception of support, and role of anxiety in new spaces’ (p. 279). The author considers, for example, that students’ perceptions of support for active learning ‘will vary from classroom to classroom, and with individual characteristics of students and instructors’ (p. 279). Only by acknowledging the variety of experiences can instructors make an informed decision about whether and how to develop students’ readiness for active learning and can academic developers support academics in that endeavour.

Gillaspy’s (2020) reflection on practice beckons us to adopt an integrated approach to coaching in academic development practice. This approach focuses on a choreographic weaving of the threads that make up the ‘whole academic’, including both their multiple roles at work and their lives outside of work. Gillaspy invites us to adopt various principles and strategies, such as ‘lifewide learning, heutagogy, and an asset-driven approach’ (p. 287) which may enable academic developers to support academics not only to survive, but to thrive in the current ‘pressured’ and ‘turbulent times’ in higher education.

Jessop’s (2020) book review notes that ‘changing student demographics, mass higher education, a technological whirlwind, commodification, and the relentless drive to measure outcomes are some of the pressures facing lecturers in 21st century universities’ (p. 290). The book’s ‘repertoire’ of theoretically based approaches could be useful to academic developers as well as academics at various stages of their career development. Perhaps most importantly, Jessop observes that the human stories in the book may enable academics to (re)construct meaning for their academic lives within ever-changing contexts.

Looking at the articles in this issue through the lens of diversity leads to new insights regarding the benefits of probing more deeply into, and continuing to explore and advocate for, diversity in academic development. Practices and approaches that invite us to look for diversity can lead to increased awareness of variation and the ability to see (inter)relationships among a greater multitude of things that may initially seem disparate. These new relationships may lead to transformations in perspectives and open up new and different possibilities for action.

Arguably, such a transformed perspective, integrative of a rich diversity, also produces a more holistic and humane way of being as academic developers and as academics. The current, unexpected challenges of a global pandemic have perhaps instigated a qualitative shift in mindset: if you stay ready, you won’t have to get ready. Importantly, this readiness does not imply solidifying an approach for responding to a possible next wave of the pandemic or other disruption. Instead, readiness involves cultivating our ability to see, make sense of, and respond to unavoidable and unexpected changes with a strengthened and synergistic approach that is rooted in diversity.