Agency and structure in academic development practices: are we liberating academic teachers or are we part of a machinery supressing them?

Is SoTL a Signature Pedagogy of Educational Development?

“…Even as we embrace the convergence of educational development and SoTL that Hutchings and colleagues () have noted and that our analysis here implies, we must be wary not to domesticate and institutionalize SoTL (Roxa & Martensson, ). Instead, the goals of educational development are manifest when faculty are doing SoTL in all its glorious messiness.…”

“…By nurturing conversations and community, it contributes to meaningful and sustained changes in teaching practices, teachers' identities, and student learning—and also in the development of institutions as learning organizations. Yet educational developers should be wary of the power they have to mold teaching practices and learning cultures; when political and economic forces create institutional policies that may not be in the best interest of students or instructors, educational developers would be prudent to regularly ask themselves the question posed recently by Roxa and Martensson (): “are we liberating academic teachers or are we part of the machinery suppressing them?”…”

Intersections of Identity and Power in Educational Development

“…An illustrative tale of the power we wield is told by Roxå and Mårtensson () in an article with the wonderfully provocative subtitle, “Are We Liberating Academic Teachers or Are We Part of a Machinery Suppressing Them?” The authors share the story of having a social anthropologist shadow their work presenting a popular series of mandatory pedagogical courses for faculty at Lund University in Sweden, only to be taken aback when the resulting report described them as “prime agents for a suppressing machinery anchored in globalisation and economification with an agenda to control academic teachers for the benefit of economic growth linked to a neoliberal ideology of life” (Roxå and Mårtensson , 97). This conclusion speaks specifically to the role developers play implementing government policies and standards for higher education—such as those defined by the Bologna Process in Europe—a role that can put developers in the uncomfortable position of dealing with faculty “compliance” and “resistance” (Handal et al.…”

“…After the initial shock of being called “agents of suppressing machinery” and some reflection on the work of educational developers, Roxå and Mårtensson (, 102) acknowledge that we do indeed have power, granted through the resources we control, our input on policies and standards, the processes we manage, and our knowledge. By definition, the work we do is predicated on this power: “in the situations where academic developers excel and to a large extent perform what is the core in the profession, namely running courses and workshops, or consulting with academics, power permeates the situation.” (Roxå and Mårtensson , 102). We would not have a reason to exist as a profession if we did not have the expertise, ability, and authority to bring about change.…”

“…We would not have a reason to exist as a profession if we did not have the expertise, ability, and authority to bring about change. Even as we see our work in terms of empowering, facilitating, and supporting others, educational developers have power because, as Roxå and Mårtensson (, 102) simply state, we “do things to others.” And with that comes a responsibility we must recognize and own.…”