Why history? Why now? Multiple accounts of the emergence of academic development

Grant, B. Rosemary; Lee, Alison; Clegg, Sue; Manathunga, Catherine; Barrow, Mark; Kandlbinder, Peter; Brailsford, Ian; Gosling, David; Hicks, Margaret

doi:10.1080/13601440802659551

Cited by 31 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We suggest therefore that claiming an identity as a HE researcher is embroiled in complex ways in the temporal emergence of HE research and academic development over the last 40 years (Grant et al, 2009), and with the changing landscape of HE itself and of HE policy. Thus different temporalities with their different contingent circumstances come into play in the presumed temporality of the designation 'early', the temporal trajectory of a relatively young field/s, and the temporalities of the individual as researcher who may be 'newer', but simultaneously late in terms of an academic career.…”

Section: Complexities Of Career Trajectoriesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Who is the newer researcher into higher education? Locating ourselves in shifting terrains

Hancock

Clegg

Crossouard

et al. 2015

Higher Education Research & Development

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article aims to deconstruct the underpinning tenets of the term ‘newer researcher into higher education’. In recognition of the ambiguities of the term, we begin by questioning the nature of the field(s) of research into higher education (HE). \ud \ud Secondly, we critique the policy discourses associated with the term ‘newer researcher’. Then, with a view to illustrating the over-linear assumptions of such discourses, the article articulates the biographies of practising researchers in this field through narrative reconstructions of the five authors’ own routes as researchers into HE, openly acknowledging their temporalities and serendipitous conditionalities. Finally, we consider the nature of a career in the context of the professionalisation of routes into HE research. Our concluding remarks return us to the question of the status of HE research and to suggestions of positive ways to embrace the dilemmas we face

show abstract

Section: Complexities Of Career Trajectoriesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Who is the newer researcher into higher education? Locating ourselves in shifting terrains

Hancock

Clegg

Crossouard

et al. 2015

Higher Education Research & Development

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are references to educational development as a 'profession' where the scare quotes might signify ambivalence (Grant et al, 2009). Clegg (2009a), borrowing from Collier (1997), refers to educational development as a 'concrete science' in contrast to an 'abstract science'.…”

Section: Higher Education Research and Developmentmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…I first focus on the outward face. In the recent literature on the nature and identity of educational development there seems to be a broad consensus that educational development is a distinctive field of practice (Boughey, 2007;Clegg, 2009aClegg, , 2009bGrant et al, 2009;Harland & Staniforth, 2008;Scott 2009aScott , 2009b. These practices have been structurally formalized into units established across the higher education sector from the 1970s in the USA, the UK and Australia and from the 1980s in South Africa in response to a rapidly changing higher education system.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

Educational development as a field: are we there yet?

Shay

2012

Higher Education Research & Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper contributes to the critical engagement about educational development and its status as a field. The critique focuses in particular on our knowledge and the nature of our knowledge-building. The paper argues that unless we strengthen our knowledge base we will not emerge as a professional field able to engage rigorously and systematically with the problems of higher education. Drawing on social realist work that builds on the ideas of Basil Bernstein, a framework is offered for conceptualizing knowledge differentiation and the implications of different types of knowledge for knowledge-building. The paper concludes with suggestions on how educational development might strengthen its knowledge-building capacity.

show abstract

“…Thus, more sophisticated approaches based on understandings about the construction of discursive environments through institutional cultures, their impact on identity construction, the nature of work in the organisation, and understandings about knowledge itself are increasingly advocated for educational development practice (Rowland 2002, Gray & Radloff 2006, McAlpine, Blackmore 2006, Knight 2000, Brand 2007, Lee 2008, Grant 2009, Taylor 2010 Gray & Radloff 2008, Brew & Peseta 2008, Taylor 2010, Mathieson 2011.…”

Section: Academic Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Its object, broadly, is to support critique about the purposes of higher education itself (Rowland 2007), though the 'forms of knowing' are still being developed and described (Clegg 2009). Disciplinary knowledge is privileged in this discourse over practical or everyday knowledge and understood as the key to understanding the epistemological foundation of academic practice.…”

Section: Chapter 1 Introduction: Working Knowledge and The Academic Dmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implications for Professional Development

Mathematics Education With Digital Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study sought to investigate the working knowledge of academics in a 'new' university in Australia. Working knowledge, or knowledge 'put to use' in day-to-day work, describes what academics actually do. What knowledge academics use day to day is vital for those concerned in the development of academic staff. Academic development has of late focused on supporting academics to respond to the changing demands of new forms of work, and has been accused of lacking an epistemological base or a clearly articulated position. The findings of this study make suggestions concerning a philosophical and practical way forward for the development of academic staff.This study adopts and develops phenomenographic method. It explores interviews with 20 academics to identify differences concerning what is necessary and valuable to know in order to work day-to-day as a practising academic. From the perspective of academics, this analysis identified three domains of working knowledge within daily academic practice. Unsurprisingly two of these domains are the relatively wellexplored fields of teaching and research. The third, previously unidentified as a specific field, was institutional administration. Understanding of and practice in this third new field was not only pivotal to the constitution of academic practice, but it appeared to mediate the ways in which the other two domains of teaching and research were brought together. Of further significance, working knowledge of institutional administration was implicated in academic identity and also signalled academics' more fundamental understandings of what constituted knowledge.The findings suggest the object of academic development is supporting the attainment of ontological and epistemological certainties and its subject is working knowledge.This repositions academic development practice away from fragmentation towards holistic, whole-of-work approaches.

show abstract

Why history? Why now? Multiple accounts of the emergence of academic development

Cited by 31 publications

References 2 publications

Who is the newer researcher into higher education? Locating ourselves in shifting terrains

Who is the newer researcher into higher education? Locating ourselves in shifting terrains

Educational development as a field: are we there yet?

Implications for Professional Development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About