We need each other: academic development work as necessary reciprocity

Togetherness is fundamental to establishing strong foundations in academic development practice. It links with such prominent themes in the literature as belonging, community, identities, and networks. These connections, when people interact, ideas intersect, and materials enable, form lasting impressions and ultimately lead to the development of a person and their work. Yet, within these themes of being together, growing together, and finding belonging through knowing together, a crucial element for effective learning is often tacit or implied. This is the notion of reciprocity. Reciprocity requires more than turning up or being present. It calls for investment and mutually beneficial exchange. Reciprocity seeks to mirror positive actions with positive actions, rewarding kindness, care, and helpfulness.

In conceptualising reciprocity, we draw from work on Indigenous ways of knowing and being and learn from Aboriginal ways of approaching teaching and learning. Kennedy et al. (2018, 2019) describe Jindoala, an Aboriginal academic development program that brings authenticity to co-creating curricula with community to embed Aboriginal Knowledges and perspectives. The process of this co-creation follows an Aboriginal approach for conducting business, including three valued protocols of respect, responsibility, and reciprocity. In the Yuin nation, located on the south-east coast of Australia, the Aboriginal word for reciprocity is ‘ngapartji ngapartji’, which means ‘give and take’ (Kennedy et al., 2018, p. 6). The act of giving and taking, to and from each other and the community, is essential for proper business in order to show respect for all and commitment to the people and communities with whom you engage. ‘Ngapartji ngapartji’ magnifies our interconnectedness.

Academic development work requires necessary reciprocity. Academic development is neither a one-way exchange nor didactic practice. The academic developer needs faculty to engage and respond through openness and authenticity to assist in designing meaningful programs and create responsive learning environments. Faculty need academic developers to understand their diverse contexts and contributions and be willing to shape what academic developers offer to their own unique needs. Indeed, Bilous et al. (2018) emphasise the importance of adopting ‘an ethics of reciprocity’ (p. 169) when engaging with international partners to ‘co-create’ curriculum and resources. Furthermore, faculty require active and honest engagement from each other to shape identities, gain a sense of belonging, identify and join communities, and grow in their academic practice. In the editorial of a recent special issue of IJAD on ‘Conversations on Learning and Teaching’, Pleschová et al. (2021) highlight the importance of reciprocity, respect, and common practices and values when faculty members engage in ‘significant conversations’ (Roxå & Mårtensson, 2009, 2015) with each other or academic developers. They note that these conversations often occur in contexts removed from the formal spaces of academic development programmes.

In the articles and reflection on practice in this issue, we see echoes of reciprocity in action: through the giving of feedback after a suite of workshops (Muammar & Alkathiri, 2022) and the discovery of identities amongst peers transitioning into new spaces (Bailey et al., 2022; Beaton, 2022), the synthesis of others’ scholarly contributions to imagine new insights (Oo et al., 2022), through engagement in ‘pedagogic dialogues’ in the context of peer observations of teaching (Warren, 2022, p. 293), and the building of networks and communities to share and learn together (Bailey et al., 2022; Taylor et al., 2022). We need each other in academic development work. It is our necessary reciprocity that facilitates our meaning making, development, and success.

The role of a teaching-focused academic is well known as being potentially isolating for newcomers. This is particularly true for those coming from research or industry-based positions into a teaching-only, student-facing role, where discipline experts employ their knowledge and skills to provide innovative, evidence-based teaching. In their paper, Bailey et al. (2022) recognise the critical role of the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) for teaching-only academics, leveraged through faculty learning communities (FLC). Through unpacking authentic accounts of participants’ experiences, they found that FLCs can be helpful to increase engagement in SoTL, bridge the liminal space from research to scholarship, and bring people together as they learn and grow to overcome isolation.

Similarly, emphasising the importance of communities and the ways in which we need each other to develop teaching and learning, Taylor et al. (2022) propose the use of group-based hubs. They describe hubs as small groups of colleagues within larger significant networks that can foster crucial learning environments and contribute to building broader networks of practice. Several examples of networks and hubs in teaching and learning are offered, leading to a proposed framework for integrated teaching and learning networks. The authors impart key points of wisdom for cultivating integrated networks, including the role of microcultures, information sharing, distributed leadership and, at the heart of it all, forging connections with one another.

Offering professional development programmes requires commitment by institutions and faculty members, and assessing faculty members’ satisfaction with these programmes can be an important factor in discerning their impact. In their study, Muammar and Alkathiri (2022) gather perspectives of over 2300 faculty members participating in various teaching development sessions over three years in a Saudi Arabian university. Across three constructs, ‘objectives and content’, ‘facilitator and delivery’, and ‘logistics and supporting facilities’ (Muammar & Alkathiri, 2022, p. 225), seven factors were found to contribute in a significant way to faculty members’ satisfaction. Four of the seven factors were associated with ‘objectives and content’, emphasising faculty members’ focus on the importance of achieving programme outcomes. Threaded throughout the authors’ work is a sense of care for faculty members: soundly designed professional development opportunities which satisfy the needs of faculty members can support their job satisfaction and wellbeing.

Exploring a relatively uncharted domain in academic development work, Oo et al. (2022) report on a systematic review of the complex yet vital area of Research Data Management (RDM) training. Their intent is to excavate the features of effective RDM training to inform the work of academic developers and institutions seeking to support students and staff with varying data management needs at different stages of their careers. In addition to revealing four dimensions of ‘successful RDM training’ (Oo et al., 2022, p. 254), the authors further unveil through a thematic analysis three themes inherent in studies of RDM training, including a dedicated focus on the user experience and the importance of integrating opportunities to learn through authentic practice. Perhaps most interestingly, however, collaboration with multiple internal and external stakeholders emerged as crucial when designing and facilitating effective RDM.

Beaton’s (2022) work illustrates how we both shape and are shaped by the various communities of practice in which we participate. Beaton (2022) unveils the tensions that arise when industry professionals, whom she terms ‘dual professionals’ (DPs) (p. 234), navigate new roles in higher education as novice teachers. Beaton (2022) adopts Wenger’s Communities of Practice to investigate how academic professional development programmes contribute to DPs’ identity development, their perceptions regarding their legitimacy as educators, and their sense of belonging. Study findings highlight the importance of relationships developed with staff and students with whom DPs share a disciplinary community founded on a shared ethos, as well as shared practices and values.

In this issue’s reflection on practice, Warren (2022) explores the metaphor of diffraction to propose an alternative way of conceptualising peer observations. She makes use of Barad’s (2007) diffractive analysis that draws from quantum physics and is based on observing ripples or changes in interrupted wave patterns. Taken into the peer observation of teaching context, Warren (2022) wonders if ‘patterns of difference’ (p. 292) can be helpful for learning through teaching experiences. While this research is ongoing, there are insights in this paper that will encourage teachers, when conversing with others, to notice the impact of differences in pedagogy rather than focusing on ‘best practices’.

The two book reviews included in this issue also bring reciprocity to the fore. In a review of the second edition of Paul J. Silvia’s How to write a lot: A practical guide to productive academic writing, Murphy (2022) notes that Silvia’s updated work pays greater attention to the writing needs of colleagues across disciplines. Murphy also notes that Silvia’s work raises the importance of community in meeting the difficulties encountered in writing. And while many of us may intuitively sense how important relationships are to our work, Pleschová’s (2022) review of Felten and Lambert’s Relationship-rich education: How human connections drive success in college focuses on the compelling case they make for the essential need to create opportunities for interconnectedness among students, staff, and faculty within our institutions. These relationships are vital to the quality of students’ learning experiences.

Taken together, the contributions to this issue leave us with no doubt that reciprocity is necessary in our work. We do indeed need each other. As you read the contributions, we invite you to explore the ways in which you engage in, rely on, and embed reciprocity into your own academic development practice.