Organisational change literature is littered with labels for those who instigate, support, resist, or implement change. Absent is research into the perspectives of those who are given these labels. This paper reports findings from a literature search, journal scan and a case study of an Australian university where change agents were labelled 'School Champions'. Data analysis of the authors suggests that labels do matter, not only to change agents, but also other academics who interacted with them such as Associate Deans. The authors found that, because a label implies an identity, when the choice of labels is unexamined, unintended consequences can result. These include ridicule, derision, and serious or lighthearted teasing, plus dismissive and cynical attitudes towards senior management's endorsement of buzz words as labels. The authors suggest strategies to ensure that a label or identity badge suits academe, has minimal potential to cause emotional or professional harm, and is embraced rather than renounced.
Little has been written about academic developers (ADs) working in teams leading other ADs. This paper chronicles the experience of a group of ADs in one Australian university working on a curriculum realignment exercise. Unexpectedly the dominant theme in participants' reflections was group dynamics, not the process. We were confronted by unstated assumptions about ADs working collaboratively and shocked to realise that ADs, like academics, resist change. Our interpretation of that 'resistance' was a salutary reminder of the extent to which academic development work reflects broader social, political, and institutional contexts and discourses. Parallels between this context and ADs working with academics are drawn.
IntroductionIn 2009, a group of academic developers (ADs) from an academic development unit (ADU) at a multi-campus Australian university engaged in a change process -a curriculum realignment exercise. The authors were part of this group. Atypically this exercise comprised only ADs, not external faculty. It involved two graduate certificate tertiary teaching courses which share a number of units, taught exclusively by ADs and delivered through the ADU. It had three purposes:improve the quality of the curriculum to ensure it was the best practice model in the university; enhance alignment between various aspects of the university-wide agenda to reform learning and teaching approaches; better prepare for an imminent full-course review.
Much has been written about academic developers as change agents but not in an interprofessional education (IPE) context. IPE involves teaching students in different health professions how to work effectively in teams across professional boundaries to improve the quality of patient care. Extensive evidence reveals that implementing sustainable IPE adds significant complex challenges for developers. This Australian case study of three developers revealed they succeeded in improving an IPE subject with just-in-time support, but the process was fraught with power plays and different expectations from academic leaders. Ways forward include practical suggestions for developers and their managers, and a call for research on the emotional toll that these situations can have.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.