Against a backdrop of other professional arenas, including higher education, this article examines the field of educational development—who we are (mostly women) and what we do (care, service, and emotional labor)—through the lens of gender. While we suggest that educational development may provide a positive counterexample to the male dominance in other higher education professions, we also argue that the common devaluing of women and their labor, well‐documented in other arenas, may contribute to educational developers' "marginal" positions on campuses, our difficulties getting "invited to the table," as well as our challenges in becoming more involved in organizational development efforts. The article concludes with suggestions for how educational developers might take action moving forward.

No abstract

The authors explore assumptions that underlie work on organizational development in their field, which reveal hierarchical and homogenizing tendencies, despite commitments to inclusivity. Given that the aim of recent literature, such as Schroeder and Associates’ Coming in from the Margins, is to situate educational developers in relation to organizational development, and given the field's values, then both staff and directors must be considered. The authors examine how the margins can be valuable sites of knowledge production, highlighting the ways staff might contribute to organizational development. The authors hope that readers will gain several ideas for how to incorporate staff into organizational development.

In response to the recent special call in To Improve the Academy, we offer the following collaborative essay that describes how feminism is our characterizing perspective on educational development. The essay details various, interrelated facets of feminism that inform our work in the field: gender, intersectionality, power, privilege, standpoint theory, and collaboration. Not only do these facets characterize our own feminist approach to educational development—from consultations to organizational development to publications—but, we argue, they also align well with the values and approaches of the field as a whole.

No abstract